LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

^Received         ^     111  893  -  i89 
^Accessions  No.  H-Q  bo.  Class  No. 


GOSPEL-CRITICISM 


HISTORICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  GOSPELS  AND  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE 
GOSPEL-CANON  DURING   THE  SECOND  CENTURY 


WITH  A  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  RESULTS  OF 
MODERN  CRITICISM 


BY 


ORELLO   C,ONE,  D.D. 


&HI7ETK3IT7 


G.   P.    PUTNAM'S    SONS 

NEW   YORK  LONDON 

27    WEST  TWENTY-THIKD    ST.         27  KING   WILLIAM    ST.,    STRAND 

®Ije  finuherbocher  "press 
1891 


rs 


t 


COPYRIGHT  1891 

BY 
ORELLO  CONE 


ttbe  fmfcfcerbocfeer  g>re03,  Hew  ^orft 

Electrotyped,  Printed,  and  Bound  by 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 


TO   THE   BELIEVERS   WHO    FEAR   CRITICISM 

AND 
TO   THE   UNBELIEVERS   WHO    APPEAL   TO    IT 


Nicht  jeder  Buchstabe  ist  ein  Wort,  nicht  jede  Erzahlung  eine 
Geschichte  Jesu. — KEIM. 

No  divine  revelation  can  be  delivered  into  human  keeping  without 
being  shorn  of  its  first  lustre  by  the  clouded  region  through  which 
it  has  to  pass.  .  .  .  Yet  there  are  discernible  a  few  ineffaceable 
lineaments  which  could  belong  only  to  a  figure  unique  in  grace  and 
majesty. — MARTINEAU. 


PREFACE. 


SO  long  as  there  are  unbelievers  who  appeal  to  criti- 
cism and  believers  who  regard  it  with  aversion,  no 
apology  need  be  made  for  a  book  which  undertakes  to 
show  the  true  nature  of  the  critical  process  and  its  actual 
results.  For  the  appeal  of  unbelievers  to  criticism  and 
the  aversion  to  it  by  the  devout  proceed  in  many  cases 
from  an  imperfect  understanding  of  its  aims  and  conclu- 
sions. It  is  the  belief  of  the  author  that  Gospel-criticism 
has  important  lessons  both  for  the  believer  and  the  unbe- 
liever, and  that  the  one  may  learn  from  it  what  are  the  true 
grounds  of  a  rational  faith  in  historical  Christianity,  and 
the  other  the  futility  of  the  attempts  ordinarily  made  to 
invalidate  it. 

It  is  the  object  of  this  work  to  show  the  actual  appli- 
cation of  the  critical  process  to  the  Gospels,  to  indicate 
the  main  lines  of  the  course  of  the  criticism  of  these 
writings,  and  to  ascertain  what  is  tenable  and  permanent 
in  its  conclusions.  A  selection  of  topics  was  necessary  to 
the  accomplishment  of  the  object  in  view  within  the 
limits  proposed,  and  the  author  has  accordingly  chosen 
what  appeared  to  him  to  be  some  of  the  most  important 
subjects  with  which  Gospel-criticism  has  to  deal.  Besides 
a  brief  consideration  of  the  text  and  a  study  of  the  com- 
position and  authorship  of  each  of  the  four  Gospels,  con- 
siderable space  has  been  given  to  an  historical  and  critical 

vii 


VI 11  PREFACE. 

investigation  of  the  formation  of  the  canon  of  the  Gos- 
pels, or  the  history  of  these  writings  during  the  second 
century,  and,  furthermore,  to  some  special  matters  of 
criticism,  as  in  the  chapters  on  the  Eschatology  of  the  Gos- 
pels, Dogmatic  "  Tendencies  "  in  the  Gospels,  etc.,  as  well 
as  to  questions  touching  the  results  of  the  critical  inquiries 
undertaken. 

While  the  attempt  has  not  been  made  to  write  a  history 
of  the  course  of  Gospel-criticism,  it  has  been  found  to 
subserve  the  purpose  of  the  work  to  indicate  in  connec- 
tion with  some  of  the  problems  discussed  the  progress 
of  critical  inquiry,  particularly  as  to  the  theories  of  the 
composition  of  the  first  three  Gospels  in  treating  of  the 
Synoptic  Problem.  The  entire  study  has  necessarily  been 
conducted  with  a  constant  reference  to  the  works  of  the 
great  masters  of  Gospel-criticism,  particularly  to  those  of 
the  unequalled  German  masters ;  but  the  writer  has 
endeavored  to  maintain  an  independence  of  judgment  in 
all  cases,  and  to  observe  a  becoming  modesty,  as  he  hopes 
will  be  apparent,  whenever  he  has  found  himself  obliged 
to  reach  conclusions  opposed  to  those  of  learned  and 
eminent  authorities. 

As  to  the  results  of  this  study,  the  author  ventures  to 
express  the  belief  that  it  has  been  shown  in  the  course  of 
it  that  while  from  the  so-called  traditional  point  of  view 
considerable  concessions  are  required  to  be  made  to  criti- 
cism, the  conclusions  which  must  be  drawn  from  its  appli- 
cation to  the  Gospels  tend  rather  to  establish  than  to 
invalidate  the  essentials  of  historical  Christianity.  But 
while  men  differ  so  widely  as  at  present  as  to  what  these 
essentials  really  are,  he  cannot  expect  the  unanimous  assent 
of  his  readers  to  this  conclusion.  He  is  not  unaware  of 
the  power  of  prejudice  and  traditional  beliefs  in  determin- 


PREFACE.  ix 

ing  men's  opinions  on  matters  of  the  kind  discussed  in 
these  pages ;  but  he  hopes  that  reason  and  the  historical 
sense,  which  is  a  species  of  common-sense  possessed  in  a 
greater  or  less  measure  by  all  men,  will  be  allowed  due 
weight  by  his  readers  in  forming  their  conclusions  on  the 
important  questions  treated  of  in  this  volume. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

PAGB 

THE    TEXT 1 

I. — The  Autographs  of  the  Gospels  .......  I 

2. — Copies        ...........  4 

3. — Extra-Textual  Witnesses 6 

4. — The  Manuscripts         .........  9 

5. — The  Variants       ..........  12 

a.  Unintentional  Changes 12 

b.  Intentional  Changes    .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .13 

c.  Dogmatic  Changes 18 

6. — Some  Principles  of  Textual  Criticism           .....  19 

7. — The  Versions 22 

CHAPTER   II. 

THE  CANON 27 

I. — The  Apostolic  Age      .........  33 

2. — The  Post-Apostolic  Age      ........  37 

a.  Clement  of  Rome        ........  41 

b.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas     .......  45 

c.  The  Shepherd  of  Hernias             ......  48 

3. — The  Epistles  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius         .         .         .         .         .51 

4. — Papias  of  Hierapolis  and  Hegesippus           .....  60 

5. — Justin  Martyr's  Gospels 65 

6. — The  Clementine  Homilies,  Basilides,  and  Valentinus           .         .  74 

7- — The  Canon  of  Marcion  and  Tatian's  Diatessaron          ...  85 

8. — Dionysius  of  Corinth,  Melito  of  Sardis,  and  Athenagoras              .  93 

9- — Theophilus  of  Antioch  and  the  Canon  of  Muratori       ...  97 

10. — Irenseus  and  Tertullian        ........  102 

II.— The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Canon 108 

12. — The  Gospels  in  the  Alexandrian  Church      .         .         .         .         .  113 


xii  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE    SYNOPTIC    PROBLEM Il8 

I. — The  Hypothesis  of  Copying      .            .         .         .         .         .         .  125 

2. — The  Hypothesis  of  a  Common  Written  Source  or  of  an  Original 

Gospel 130 

3.— The  Hypothesis  of  Oral  Tradition 138 

4. — The  Course  of  More  Recent  Criticism 142 

5. — Conclusions  Regarding  the  Synoptic  Problem       .         .         .         .150 

CHAPTER   IV. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MARK l6l 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  ....      173 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    LUKE 197 

CHAPTER   VII. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    JOHN 2IO 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    ESCHATOLOGY    OF    THE    GOSPELS 254 

CHAPTER  IX. 

DOGMATIC  "TENDENCIES"  IN  THE  GOSPELS        .       .        .    291 

CHAPTER  X. 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    IN    THE    GOSPELS  ;     OR,  THE  HERME- 

NEUTICS    OF    THE    EVANGELISTS 306 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE    GOSPELS    AS   HISTORIES 318 

CHAPTER    XII. 

CRITICISM    AND    HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY     .          .          .          .337 


GOSPEL-CRITICISM 

AND 

HISTORICAL  CHRISTIANITY. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  TEXT. 
I. — THE     AUTOGRAPHS    OF     THE     GOSPELS. 

IF  the  authors  of  the  Gospels  had  a  presentiment  of 
the  importance  which  later  ages  would  attach  to 
their  writings,  it  does  not  appear  in  any  words  which  they 
have  left.  The  writer  of  the  third  Gospel  is  the  only  one 
of  them  who  explicitly  states  the  object  for  which  his 
record  was  made,  and  he  appears  to  have  had  in  view 
primarily,  if  not  solely,  the  instruction  of  a  certain  The- 
ophilus.  But  any  hope  which  the  evangelists  may  be 
supposed  to  have  cherished  that  their  very  words  would 
be  preserved  as  a  sacred  legacy  by  future  generations, 
could  not  but  be  frustrated  by  the  inevitable  fortune  to 
which  their  productions  were  subject  by  the  conditions 
and  circumstances  under  which  they  wrote.  It  was  many 
years  after  the  composition  of  their  records  before  writ- 
ings giving  accounts  of  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  came  to 
be  held  in  especially  high  regard,  and  to  be  preferred  to 
the  still  living  tradition  handed  down  by  word  of  mouth. 


2  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Accordingly,  scrupulous  care,  either  in  their  preservation 
or  copying  is  not  to  be  presumed  on  the  part  of  those 
into  whose  hands  they  may  have  fallen.  Besides,  the 
autographs  of  the  Gospels  must  have  perished  in  a  short 
time  on  account  of  the  fragile  nature  of  the  material  on 
which  they  were  written.  According  to  the  custom  of 
the  time  they  were  doubtless  written  upon  papyrus*  by 
means  of  a  reed  charged  with  ink,f  instead  of  upon  the 
more  costly  parchment.  The  best  of  the  papyrus  was 
fragile,  and  under  constant  use  would  be  destroyed  in  a 
few  years.  Use  or  neglect  must,  however,  be  assumed  in 
order  to  account  for  the  early  disappearance  of  the  auto- 
graphs of  the  Gospels,  since  there  are  examples  of  the 
preservation  of  papyrus-manuscripts  through  long  periods 
of  time  in  Egyptian  tombs  and  in  a  villa  of  Herculaneum. 
But  the  reports  of  the  discovery  of  wonderfully  preserved 
originals  of  the  Gospels,  which  were  circulated  by  the 
Roman  Catholics  in  the  dark  ages,  must  be  put  to  the 
account  of  legend.  It  was  said  that  the  grave  of  Barna- 
bas was  opened  in  the  fifth  century  in  consequence  of  a 
"  revelation/'  and  that  this  saint  was  found  to  hold  in  his 
hands  a  splendid  copy  of  the  first  Gospel  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Matthew  himself.  This  copy  was  held  sacred, 
and  preserved  in  Constantinople  as  a  standard  of  the  text 
of  this  Gospel.  A  similar  legend  was  current  respecting 
the  marvellous  preservation  of  an  autograph  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  at  Ephesus,  where  it  was  worshipped  by  the 
faithful.  The  time  of  the  disappearance  of  the  auto- 
graphs of  the  Gospels  cannot,  of  course,  be  accurately 
determined.  No  trace  of  them  is  found  in  the  oldest 
Christian  literature.  Had  they  been  in  existence  towards 


*  TtdTtvpot, 

f  Sta  xdprov  nai  jiieA.avo$,  II.    John  12. 


THE  TEXT.  3 

the  end  of  the  second  century,  when  controversies  were 
carried  on  which  frequently  turned  upon  readings  of  cer- 
tain texts,  they  would  doubtless  have  been  appealed  to  as 
decisive  authorities,  especially  since  at  that  time  the  Gos- 
pels were  beginning  to  enjoy  high  repute  as  oracles,  and 
to  be  placed  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  Old  Testament. 
Of  the  manner  in  which  the  originals  of  the  Gospels 
were  written  we  may  learn  from  the  Italian  and  Egyp- 
tian papyrus-rolls  of  the  same  date  which  have  been 
preserved.  The  text  was  written  in  columns  upon  the 
papyrus  in  the  so-called  uncials,  or  capital  letters,  and  ran 
unbroken,  z>.,  without  division  of  words  and  marks  of 
punctuation.  The  iota  was  not  subscribed,  nor  was  it 
always  adscribed.  Breathings  and  accents  were  not  em- 
ployed. That  the  authors  of  these  writings  gave  them 
the  titles  which  they  now  bear  is  improbable.  Against 
the  supposition  that  they  entitled  them  "  Gospels "  is, 
according  to  Tischendorf,  Justin  Martyr's  constant  refer- 
ence to  the  evangelistic  records  known  to  him  as  "  Me- 
morabilia of  the  Apostles,"  *  a  designation  to  which  he 
once  adds,  "  which  are  called  Gospels."  f  He  could  hardly 
have  so  expressed  himself  had  these  writings  originally 
borne  the  formal  titles  by  which  they  have  been  known 
since  the  formation  of  the  canon.  That  part  of  the  titles 
which  indicates  the  reputed  authors  of  the  several  works, 
the  words,  "  according  to  Matthew,"  etc.,  has  a  so  decid- 
edly editorial  look,  as  to  leave  little  doubt  that  it  was 
prefixed  to  the  originals.  The  titles  also  presuppose  a 
collection  of  Gospels,  each  one  of  which  is  distinguished 
from  the  others  by  a  heading  that  is  uniform  except  in  the 
name  of  the  evangelist  to  whom  the  writing  is  ascribed. 

*  oc.itoiJ.vrjiiovsviJ.aTCL  TGOV  aTto6To\.<&v. 
\  a  KaXelrai  evayyekia. 


GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 


2. COPIES. 


Not  only  have  the  autographs  of  the  Gospels  unhap- 
pily perished,  but  the  earliest  copies  of  them  have  had 
a  similar  fortune,  and,  like  the  originals,  have  left  no 
trace  of  their  existence.  During  more  than  two  centuries 
the  fate  of  these  writings  and  of  their  earliest  transcrip- 
tions is  unknown.  Of  the  care  that  was  bestowed  upon 
the  preparation  of  these  copies,  and  by  whom  and  for 
what  purpose  they  were  made,  history  gives  no  informa- 
tion. If  it  could  be  shown  that  during  the  first  century 
after  they  were  composed  the  originals  of  the  Gospels 
were  held  in  veneration  as  writings  inspired  of  God,  the 
inference  would  be  legitimate  that  the  copying  of  them 
was  regarded  as  a  sacred  office,  to  be  performed  only 
under  a  solemn  sense  of  obligation  to  be  painstaking  and 
accurate.  It  will  appear,  however,  when  we  come  to  study 
the  history  of  the  formation  of  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  they  were  protected  by  no  such  senti- 
ment. On  the  contrary,  if  Papias  be  allowed  to  have  ex- 
pressed the  general  opinion  of  his  time  *  on  the  subject, 
the  current  oral  tradition  was  even  held  in  higher  esteem  as 
a  source  of  information  touching  the  life  and  works  of 
Jesus  than  any  written  accounts  of  them.  Whatever  infer- 
ences may  be  drawn  from  the  phenomena  presented  by 
the  existing  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  to  alterations  and 
interpolations  made  in  the  first  centuries,  there  is  little 
that  can  be  urged  in  favor  of  any  radical  changes  from  the 
originals  effected  during  this  period.  The  general  agree- 
ment of  the  manuscripts  which  have  been  preserved  and 
compared,  in  the  most  important  parts  of  the  narrative, 
and  the  remarkable  similarity  of  the  first  three  Gospels  in 
plan  and  even  in  verbal  expression,  furnish  a  strong  pre- 
sumption against  any  theory  which  may  be  set  up  of  ex- 

*  About  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 


THE  TEXT.  5 

tensive  modifications  of  the  records  by  copyists.  The 
vexing  "  synoptical  problem  "  is  a  standing  witness  to  the 
preservation  of  the  essential  integrity  of  at  least  a  central 
and  important  portion  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  It  is 
probable  that  single  Gospels  were  copied  separately  at 
first  for  private  use  or  for  public  reading  in  the  religious 
assemblies.  When  the  four  Gospels  were  first  wholly  or 
in  part  written  in  one  collection,  or  connected  with  copies 
of  the  Old  Testament,  is  unknown. 

Although  many  copies  of  the  Gospels  were  doubtless 
made  during  the  second  and  third  centuries,  yet  owing  to 
their  destruction  in  the  times  of  the  persecutions  of  the 
Christians,  to  neglect,  and  to  the  natural  dissolution  of 
the  material  on  which  they  were  written,  no  manuscripts 
remain  which  are  supposed  to  antedate  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine,  or  the  first  quarter  of  the  fourth  century.  It  is 
evident  that,  if  the  earliest  Christian  writers  succeeding 
the  evangelists  had  made  numerous  exact  quotations 
either  from  the  originals  of  the  Gospels  or  from  the  first 
copies  of  them,  such  testimony  to  the  condition  of  the 
text  during  an  obscure  period  of  its  existence  would  have 
been  of  great  importance.  But  information  from  this 
source  is  so  meagre  and  untrustworthy  as  hardly  to  be 
worthy  of  consideration.  Down  to  about  the  close  of  the 
second  century  the  remains  of  Christian  literature  are 
inconsiderable.  But  they  are  sufficient  to  show  us  that 
there  was  not  yet  much  quoting  from  the  Gospels,  or,  in- 
deed, from  any  part  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word.  Tischendorf  finds  that  the  citations 
made  at  about  the  time  in  question  are  of  the  sort  that 
they  agree  with  the  variants  handed  down  from  a  later 
time  without  on  critical  principles  having  any  special  claim 
to  apostolical  originality.  The  passages  from  the  evan- 
gelic history  which  are  found  in  the  apostolical  fathers 


6  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

and  in  Justin  Martyr  show  that  in  the  age  of  these  writers 
the  oral  tradition  had  by  no  means  yielded  to  written 
documents  either  in  currency  or  authority.  The  character 
of  the  writings  of  this  period  was  not  such  in  general  as  to 
call  for  appeals  to  the  text  in  order  to  ascertain  precisely 
what  had  been  taught  by  Jesus  or  the  apostles.  In  the 
discussions,  however,  which  were  carried  on  between  the 
so-called  orthodox  and  heretical  parties,  it  became  im- 
portant to  know  what  was  written  in  the  records.  Charges 
of  corrupting  the  text  in  the  interest  of  a  doctrine  were 
made  from  both  sides.  With  the  exception,  however,  of 
those  brought  against  Marcion,  the  Gnostic,  who  did  in 
fact  omit  some  parts  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  these  charges 
were  generally  groundless.  The  accusations  are  for  the 
most  part  found  on  examination  to  have  been  founded  on 
different  readings  of  the  text.  Readings  which  can  be 
shown  to  be  wrong  in  the  hands  of  the  so-called  heretics 
are  found  to  have  been  widely  diffused  among  writers 
opposed  to  them.  With  the  exception  just  referred  to, 
wilful  changes  and  interpolations  are  rarely  to  be  charged 
against  either  party.  Even  Marcion,  like  many  another 
heretic,  appears  not  to  have  been  so  bad  as  he  was 
painted.  For  notwithstanding  his  conceded  tampering 
with  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  it  is  said  of  him  that  in  the 
isolated  readings  which  he  is  charged  with  having  altered 
it  happens  not  unfrequently  that  he  has  retained  the  right 
reading,  and  that  his  opponents  are  in  error,  while  in  very 
many  cases  the  alleged  corruption  is  a  various  reading 
more  or  less  supported  by  the  authorities. 

3. EXTRA-TEXTUAL    WITNESSES. 

If  the  writers  who  stood  nearest  to  the  evangelists  fail 
us  in  contributing  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Gospels,  their 


THE  TEXT.  7 

successors  are  found  to  be  witnesses  of  more  importance. 
Their  testimony  is,  however,  impaired  negatively  by  our 
ignorance  of  their  manner  of  quoting.  Their  citations 
would  be  of  great  importance  if  made  carefully  from  a 
manuscript,  but  critically  of  little  worth  if  made  loosely 
from  memory.  It  must  also  be  taken  into  account  that 
the  text  of  their  writings  has  been  exposed  to  no  little 
corruption  by  copyists  who  modified  the  citations  accord- 
ing to  the  texts  of  the  Gospels  which  they  had  before 
them.  Clement  of  Alexandria  furnishes  many  passages 
quoted  from  copies  of  the  Gospels  which  antedate  the 
oldest  manuscripts  now  in  existence.  He  complains, 
however,  of  a  tendency  prevalent  in  his  own  time  to 
change  the  Gospel ;  *  but  it  is  not  known  precisely  what 
kind  of  modifications  he  had  in  mind,  whether  those 
made  by  the  Gnostics,  or  additions  by  such  as  thought 
they  could  improve  the  text,  or  arbitrary  changes  under- 
taken in  the  interest  of  harmonizing  passages  found  in 
the  different  Gospels.  He  himself  quotes  two  sayings  of 
Jesus  which  are  not  found  in  the  canonical  text.  Some- 
times he  makes  citations  freely  from  memory,  not  unfre- 
quently  mixing  two  narratives,  while  in  very  many  places 
he  has  preserved  the  true  reading. 

Origen's  contribution  to  a  knowledge  of  the  text  of 
the  Gospels  as  it  was  in  the  first  part  of  the  third  century, 
is  of  greater  importance  than  that  of  any  of  his  predeces- 
sors among  the  early  Christian  writers.  Many  of  his 
quotations  are  of  considerable  length,  and  appear  to  have 
been  made  from  manuscripts,  and  not  from  memory.  So 
numerous  and  extensive  are  they,  that  it  has  been  said 
that  almost  the  entire  text  of  the  New  Testament  might 
be  transcribed  from  his  voluminous  writings.  But  his 
*  fieranQsvai  TO 


8  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

testimony  is  greatly  curtailed  by  the  loss  of  the  original 
Greek  text  of  many  of  his  works,  they  existing  only  in 
a  Latin  translation,  and  is  impaired  by  the  corruption  of 
the  text  of  those  that  have  come  down  in  the  language 
in  which  they  were  written.  These  latter,  like  the  manu- 
scripts of  the  New  Testament,  have  suffered  from  the 
carelessness  or  the  temerity  of  copyists.  Origen's  own 
testimony  to  the  condition  of  the  text  of  the  Gospels  in 
his  time  is  worthy  of  especial  consideration.  "  As  the 
case  stands,"  he  says,  "  it  is  obvious  that  the  difference 
between  the  copies  is  considerable,  partly  from  the  care- 
lessness of  individual  scribes,  partly  from  the  wicked 
daring  of  some  in  correcting  what  is  written,  partly  also 
from  [the  changes  made  by]  those  who  add  or  remove 
what  seems  good  to  them  in  the  process  of  correction." 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we  have  not,  among  the  fruits 
of  the  great  learning  and  industry  of  Origen,  some  con- 
siderable contributions  to  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the 
Gospels.  But  while  he  gave  his  attention  to  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Septuagint 
version  by  a  comparison  of  editions,  he  appears  to  have 
been  deterred  at  least  from  making  public  any  work  of 
this  kind  on  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  fear 
of  giving  offence  to  the  Church.  He  did  not  think  he 
could  do  it  "  without  danger."  It  is  evident  that  the 
sentiment  of  his  time  must  have  been  very  unfavorable 
to  textual  criticism.  Several  cases  are,  however,  cited  by 
Norton,  in  which  Origen  has  expressly  noticed  various 
readings  in  the  Gospels.*  In  three  of  these  passages  it 
is  pointed  out  that  the  variations  which  he  notices  are  no 

*  Matt.  viii.  28  ;  xvi.  20  ;  xvii.  i  ;  xxi.  5,  9,  15  ;  xxvii.  17  ;  Mark  iii.  18  ; 
Luke  i.  46  ;  ix.  48  ;  xiv.  19  ;  xxiii.  45  ;  John  i.  3,  4,  28.  To  these  Hort 
adds,  Matt.  v.  22. 


THE  TEXT.  9 

longer  found  in  our  Greek  copies ;  in  several  our  copies  are 
still  divided ;  and  in  one,  Matthew  xxvii.  17,  a  few  copies 
of  no  great  age  retain  the  interpolation  which  was  found  in 
his  time  "  in  very  ancient  copies."  Westcott  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  circumstance  as  remarkable  that  Origen 
asserts  in  answer  to  Celsus  that  Jesus  is  nowhere  called 
"the  carpenter"  in  the  Gospels  which  were  circulated  in 
the  churches,  though  this  is  undoubtedly  the  true  reading 
in  Mark  vi.  3.* 

4. — THE    MANUSCRIPTS. 

No  complete  description  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Gospels  can  be  undertaken  here.  A  few  of  the  most 
important  will  be  mentioned  with  the  letters  designating 
them  for  convenience  of  reference  in  the  course  of  this 
treatise.  The  number  of  uncial  manuscripts  of  the 
Gospels  now  in  existence  is  not  great.  Tischendorf 
reckons  forty,  of  which  five  are  entire ;  three  nearly 
entire  ;  ten  contain  very  considerable  portions  ;  fourteen, 
very  small  fragments  ;  and  eight,  fragments  more  or  less 
considerable.  To  these  must  be  added  the  Sinaitic, 
which  is  entire,  and  two  others.  The  following  are  the 
principal  primary  uncials : 

a.  Codex  Sinaiticus  (  tf  ),  obtained  by  Tischendorf  from 
the  convent  of   St.  Catharine,  Mt.  Sinai,  in   1859.     The 
Old  and  New  Testaments  are  entire,  and  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  are  added.    It  was 
published  under  the  editorial  direction  of  Tischendorf  at 
St.  Petersburg  in  1862  in  four  splendid  folio  volumes.     It 
is  generally  regarded  as  of  the  fourth  century. 

b.  Codex  Alexandrinus  (A),  also  a  manuscript  of  the 
entire  Greek  Bible  with  the  Epistles  of  Clement  added ; 

*  Orig.  contra  Celsum,  v.    36. 


IO  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

now  in  the  British  Museum.  There  are  some  chasms  in 
the  Gospels :  Matt,  i — xxv.  6,  e££pj£<j#£?-  John  vi.  50 — 
viii.  52,  Xeyei.  Its  date  is  supposed  to  be  in  the  first 
half  of  the  fifth  century. 

c.  Codex    Vaticanus    (B),    No.    1209    in     the   Vatican 
library,  where  it  appears  to  have  been  almost   from  the 
founding  of  that  library  in  about  A.  D.    1450.      Besides 
the  Old  Testament  in  Greek  it  contains  the  New  Testa- 
ment entire  to   Heb.  ix.   14.     The  rest  of  Hebrews,  the 
pastoral  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse  were  added  in  the 
fifteenth  century.     It  is  assigned  to  the  fourth  century. 

d.  Codex  Ephrcemi  (C),  a  palimpsest   manuscript  con- 
taining fragments  of  the   Septuagint  and  of  every  part 
of  the  New  Testament.     From  the  fourth  century. 

e.  Codex  Bezce  (D),  a  Graeco-Latin  manuscript  of   the 
Gospels  and  Acts  with  a  small  fragment  of  III.  John.     It 
has  many  lacunae.     Referred  to  the  sixth  century. 

f.  Codex  Guelpherbytani  (PQ)  two   palimpsests  of  the 
sixth  and  fifth  centuries  respectively.     Fragments  of  the 
Gospel  of  Luke. 

g.  Paris   Codex  (L),  one  of  the  most  important  of  the 
late  uncial  manuscripts,  contains  the   four  Gospels  with 
some  lacunae.     The  text  agrees  remarkably  with  B  and 
with  Origen.     It  is  of  the  eighth  century. 

h.  British  Museum  Add.  17,211  (R),  a  palimpsest 
brought  to  England  in  1847  from  the  convent  of  St. 
Mary  Deipara.  The  original  text  is  covered  by  a  Syriac 
writing  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century.  About  585  verses  of 
Luke  were  deciphered  by  Tregelles  and  Tischendorf  in  1854 
and  1855  respectively.  It  is  assigned  to  the  sixth  century. 

i.  Codex  Dublinensis  rescriptus  (Z),  in  the  library  of 
Trinity  College,  Dublin,  is  a  palimpsest  containing  large 
portions  of  Matthew.  Assigned  to  the  sixth  century. 


THE  TEXT.  II 

j.  Codex  Basileensis  (E),  contains  the  four  Gospels 
with  a  few  lacunae,  and  was  probably  written  about  the 
middle  of  the  eighth  century.  A  secondary  uncial. 

k.  Codex  Borgianus  (T),  fragments  of  John  and  Luke. 
Fifth  century. 

1.  Codex  Cotton  (N),  twelve  leaves  of  purple  vellum 
four  of  which  are  in  the  British  Museum.  Thirty-three 
additional  leaves  containing  fragments  of  Mark  have 
recently  been  found  at  Patmos,  and  were  used  by  Tischen- 
dorf  in  his  eighth  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament. 
Sixth  or  seventh  century. 

m.  Codex  Sangallensis  (4)  a  manuscript  of  the  Gospels 
with  an  interlinear  Latin  translation  which  corresponds 
rather  with  the  Vulgate  than  the  Greek  text.  From  the 
ninth  century. 

n.  The  designations  Y,  Nh,  Tb,  O,  8,  I  (Tischendorf) 
are  of  less  importance,  as  are  the  secondary  uncials,  F,  G, 
H,  K,  M,  S,  U,  V,  r. 

Tregelles  has  in  his  catalogue  of  manuscripts,  which 
Westcott  regards  as  the  most  complete  and  trustworthy 
yet  made,  thirty-four  uncials  of  the  Gospels  and  six  hun- 
dred and  one  cursives.  Uncial  writing  continued  in  use 
until  about  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century.  In  the  later 
manuscripts  of  this  class  a  slight  space  between  the  words 
first  makes  its  appearance. 

The  method  of  continuous  writing  employed  in  the  earlier 
manuscripts  has  already  been  mentioned.  The  reading 
of  the  New  Testament  in  the  public  assemblies,  however, 
required  a  division  of  some  sort,  and  to  meet  this  want 
Euthalius  published  in  the  year  458  an  arrangement  of 
Paul's  Epistles  in  clauses  (arixoi).  A  similar  division  had 
previously  been  applied  to  the  Gospels  by  an  unknown 
hand.  But  the  earliest  extant  division  of  the  New  Testa- 


1 2  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

ment  into  sections  is  found  in  Cod.  B.  This  division  is 
elsewhere  found  only  in  the  palimpsest  fragment  of  Luke 
8-  Two  other  divisions  of  the  Gospels  exist,  one  into 
chapters  (xe<pakaux,  rirvXoi,  breves)  which  correspond 
with  the  distinct  sections  of  the  narrative,  and  are  on  an 
average  about  twice  as  long  as  the  sections  in  B.  This  is 
found  in  A,  C,  R,  Z,  and  probably  came  into  use  before 
the  fifth  century.  The  other  division,  made  in  the  inter- 
est of  a  Gospel-harmony,  originated  with  Ammonius  of 
Alexandria  in  the  third  century.  He  took  the  first  Gos- 
pel as  the  basis  of  his  harmony,  and  grouped  around  it 
the  parallel  passages  from  the  other  Gospels.  His  work 
was  completed  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea. 

5. — THE    VARIANTS. 

Cicero  loudly  censures  the  copyists  of  his  time,  charging 
their  errors  to  false  seeing,  false  hearing,  and  misunder- 
standing. Mistakes  of  copyists  are  doubtless  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  to  be  expected,  particularly  when,  as 
already  remarked,  the  writings  copied  are  not  protected 
by  a  sentiment  of  veneration.  Since  the  errors  them- 
selves are  likely  to  be  copied  and  fresh  ones  made  in  each 
copy,  it  is  evident  that  with  frequent  transcribing  the 
number  of  so-called  readings  must  become  very  great. 
The  various  readings  have  been  classified  according  to 
the  causes  from  which  they  arise. 

a. —  Unintentional  Changes. 

These  are  very  numerous,  and  are  due  to  several  ob- 
vious causes.  From  errors  in  hearing  and  possibly  in 
seeing  came  the  confusion  of  different  I-sounds,  called 
Itacism,  by  which  rjy  i,  «?  s,  etc.,  are  frequently  inter- 


THE  TEXT.  13 

changed,  and  less  often  o  and  GO,  ov  and  GD,  etc.  Almost 
all  manuscripts  contain  errors  of  this  kind.*  Numerous 
errors  arose  from  the  repetition  or  omission  of  similar  let- 
ters, and  from  a  false  division  of  words  by  which  a  part  of 
one  word  was  joined  to  another,  so  that  in  some  places  the 
true  division  still  remains  in  doubt.  In  one  manuscript  the 
false  divisions  of  words  have  been  corrected  by  another  hand 
than  that  of  the  writer,  and  the  frequency  of  their  occur- 
rence is  regarded  by  Westcott  as  an  instructive  illustration 
of  the  corruption  to  which  the  text  was  exposed  from  this 
source.  Here  belong  errors  in  writing  the  breathings,  as 
eiz  eXOcov  for  £i68\6<jov,  zv  rovrop  for  ev  TOVTO,  etc.  Not 
infrequent  are  errors  from  failure  of  memory,  when  a 
sentence  may  have  been  read  and  immediately  written  ; 
the  exchange  of  synonyms  and  particles  and  the  omission 
of  the  latter  ;  orthographic  confusion,  as  in  the  manifold 
writing  of  Genesaret.  Finally,  the  frequent  insertion  of 
connecting  particles,  nou,  yap7  ovv,  may  have  been  "  as 
much  due  to  an  unconscious  instinct  to  supply  natural 
links  in  the  narrative  or  argument  as  to  intentional  efforts 
to  give  greater  clearness  to  the  text." 

b.  —  Intentional  Changes. 

These  may  have  been  made  in  good  faith,  says  Holtz- 
mann,  who  remarks  that  a  thinking  copyist  may  in  some 
circumstances  be  more  dangerous  than  a  thoughtless 
one.  There  are  found,  then,  "  learned  corrections  "  of  a 
linguistic  or  grammatical  nature  and  syntactical  changes 
in  the  interest  of  what  the  copyist  appears  to  have  re- 
garded as  an  improvement  of  the  construction.  Arbitrary 


*  Matt,  xxvii.  60,  Hero's,  empty,  for  #azVo£,  new  ;  John  xv.  4, 
for  /*£>#  ;   Matt.   xi.    16,  erspo^,  for  etalpoS  ;  by  dictation  of  the  text, 
si  de  for  fde,  -fyjueiS  for  vjusiS  and  vice  versa. 


14  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

variations  in  the  text  often  arose  out  of  the  endeavor  on 
the  part  of  copyists  to  bring  parallel  portions  of  the  Gos- 
pels into  harmony.  An  example  of  this  tendency  is 
furnished  in  the  closing  words  of  the  Lord's  prayer. 
Matthew  closes  the  prayer  with  the  words,  "  but  deliver 
us  from  evil,"  and  so  reads  Luke  according  to  the  usual 
text.  This  reading  in  the  third  Gospel  has  the  very  strong 
support  of  Codd.  Alex.,  Ephr.,  Bezae,  Basil.,  and  many 
versions  ;  but  Codd.  Vat.,  Sina'it.,  and  some  later  ones  omit 
the  words,  and  close  the  prayer  with  "  not  into  tempta- 
tion.' Besides,  Origen,  Jerome,  and  Augustine  mention 
the  omission  of  them  in  Luke.  How,  then,  came  they  to 
stand  in  so  many  manuscripts  ?  The  answer  of  textual 
critics  is  that  they  were  written  there  by  copyists  in  order 
to  bring  the  third  Gospel  in  this  passage  into  harmony 
with  the  first,  since  their  omission  from  such  manuscripts 
as  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  cannot  be  accounted  for  if 
they  were  original,  while  the  harmonizing  tendency 
readily  explains  their  appearance  elsewhere.  To  the 
same  motive  must  be  attributed  the  reading  in  some 
manuscripts  which  changes  "  the  sixth  hour "  to  "  the 
third  "  in  John  xix.  14,  in  order  to  bring  the  statement 
of  this  evangelist  more  into  accord  with  Mark  xv.  25  as 
to  the  hour  of  the  crucifixion.  According  to  the  latter 
historian,  Jesus  was  crucified  at  the  third  hour,'*  while 
the  former  says  that  it  was  about  the  sixth  hourf  when 
Pilate  pronounced  sentence  upon  him.  Again,  in  Mark 
ii.  7  there  appears,  as  some  suppose,  to  be  a  combination 
according  to  certain  manuscripts  of  the  parallel  passages 
in  Matthew  and  Luke.  In  Matthew  we  read,  "  this  one 
blasphemes/'^  in  Luke,  "  who  is  this  that  speaks  blas- 

*  TJV  ds  GO  pa  rpir?/.  f  oapa  rjv  ao$  e 

\ 


THE  TEXT.  15 

phemies  ?  "  *  But  Mark  reads,  "  why  does  this  one  thus 
speak?  he  blasphemes,"  f  in  Codd.  Vat.,  Sinait.,  Bezae, 
etc.,  while  in  Codd.  Alex.,  Ephr.,  Basil.,  etc.,  we  find,  "  he 
speaks  blasphemies."  \  In  this  case  the  judgment  of  criti- 
cism is  that  internal  grounds  do  not  appear  to  decide  for 
the  one  reading  or  the  other,  and  the  external  witnesses 
are  divided.  §  Tischendorf  has  adopted  the  reading  of 
Codd.  Sinait.  and  Vat.  One  more  example  of  this  sort 
must  suffice,  out  of  the  many  which  might  be  adduced,  and 
that  is  quite  remarkable.  According  to  some  of  the  best 
authenticated  manuscripts,  Sinait.,  Vat.,  Ephr.,  the  account 
of  the  lance-thrust  into  the  body  of  Jesus  as  he  hung  upon 
the  cross,  given  in  John  xix.  34,  is  found  also  in  Matt, 
xxvii.  49,  with  the  difference  that  according  to  Matthew 
the  body  was  pierced  before,  and  according  to  John,  after 
death  had  taken  place.  It  is  said  that  Pope  Clement  V. 
at  the  Council  of  Vienna  in  1311  forbade  the  addition  in 
Matthew  ;  but  not  for  this  reason,  certainly,  nor  indeed 
on  account  of  the  contradiction,  has  the  reading  in  the  first 
Gospel  been  rejected  by  the  critical  authorities.  It  could 
hardly  have  been  wanting  in  any  copies,  had  it  been  in 
the  original,  and  the  harmonizing  tendency  explains  its 
appearance  in  some  manuscripts  of  the  first  Gospel,  even 
though  the  attempt  at  harmonizing  results  in  a  contra- 
diction which  probably  escaped  the  notice  of  the  copyists. 
Such  an  inadvertence  is  not,  however,  surprising. 

Changes  made  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  an  evan- 
gelist with  himself  or  with  facts  are  sometimes  found.  For 
example,  in  John  vii.  8  the  reading,  "  do  you  go  up  to  the 
feast,  I  go  not  yet  (OVTTGO)  up  to  this  feast,"  is  found  in 
manuscripts  whose  authority  gives  it  strong  support,  as 

*  rz'S  ttinv  ovroS  o£  A.aA,si  /3A.td(pwi<x$  ; 
f  TI  OVTO$  ovrcoS  AorA-fz  ;  /3A.ad(pr/juei. 

§  Immer,  Hermeneutik  des  N.  T.    1886,  p.  97. 


1 6  GOSPEL-CRITICJSM. 

Vat.,  Basil.,  and  the  most  of  the  other  uncials  ;  but  the  OUTTGJ 
is  omitted  in  Sinait.  and  some  others,  and  OVH  (not) 
stands  in  place  of  it.  Textual  criticism  decides  against 
the  ovTtGo,  not  altogether,  indeed,  on  the  authority  of  manu- 
scripts, but  because  its  presence  is  accounted  for  by  the 
interest  of  copyists  to  reconcile  the  declaration  of  Jesus 
that  he  would  not  go  up  to  the  feast  with  the  fact  that  he 
did  immediately  go.  The  attempts  of  copyists  to  correct 
an  error  in  referring  a  citation  from  the  Old  Testament 
to  its  author  caused  persistent  and  wide-spread  variations. 
In  Mark  i.  2  the  most  of  the  uncials  and  some  versions 
support  the  common  reading,  "  as  it  is  written  in  the 
prophets,"  and  Irenaeus  sanctions  it.  But  Tischendorf 
has  adopted  the  reading,  "  in  Isaiah  the  prophet/' 
although  the  passage  quoted,  "  behold  I  send  my  messen- 
ger before  thee,"  is  not  found  in  Isaiah.  The  reading, 
"  in  the  prophets,"  was  evidently  inserted  by  a  copyist 
who,  finding  that  the  passage  was  not  in  Isaiah,  wished  to 
set  the  evangelist  right  by  making  a  vague  reference  to 
"  the  prophets."  Tischendorf  s  reading  rests  on  the  author- 
ity of  the  majority  of  the  versions,  of  several  of  the  fathers, 
and  of  the  old  manuscripts,  Sinait.  and  Vat.  It  is  deemed 
more  probable  that  the  error  should  have  existed  in  the 
original  than  that  it  should  have  been  inserted  in  such 
manuscripts  as  those  referred  to.  But  the  fact  of  well-at- 
tested attempts  on  the  part  of  copyists  or  readers  to  correct 
an  author  in  one  interest  or  another  has  no  little  weight  in 
determining  the  verdict  of  textual  criticism  in  such  cases  as 
this.  One  might,  perhaps,  be  justified  in  the  observation 
that  the  well-known  practices  of  copyists  have  established 
a  presumption  in  favor  of  a  reading  which  contains  an 
error,  and  against  one  which  is  in  conformity  with  facts, 
when  such  variants  as  the  one  in  question  are  found. 


THE  TEXT.  17 

Additions  were  sometimes  made  to  the  text  by  copyists 
by  inserting  into  it  explanatory  words,  or  glosses,  which 
some  one  had  written  in  the  margin  of  a  manuscript.  The 
Codex  Bezae  is  the  most  remarkable  among  the  Greek  man- 
uscripts for  the  variety  and  singularity  of  these  additions. 
Some  of  these  glosses  have  passed  into  the  text,  and  re- 
tained a  place  there  until  the  critical  revision  of  Tischendorf 
threw  them  out.  The  critical  authorities  are  generally 
agreed  in  explaining  the  origin  of  many  of  these  glosses  from 
the  use  of  the  Gospels  for  public  reading  in  the  assemblies 
of  the  early  Christians.  Sometimes  they  are  repetitions  of 
solemn  expressions  found  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels,  as, 
"  He  that  hath  ears,"  etc.,  and  "  Many  are  called,  but  few 
chosen."  The  addition  of  the  doxology  to  the  Lord's 
prayer  in  Matt.  vi.  13  is  regarded  as  liturgical.  The 
words,  "  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,"  etc.,  are  wanting  in 
Codd.  Vat.,  Sinai't.,  Bezae,  in  several  versions,  and  in  some 
of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers.  The  spurious  character 
of  this  addition  is  the  more  evident  from  the  fact  that  its 
origin  is  so  easily  traceable. 

Interpolations  of  greater  importance  are  the  concluding 
verses  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  the  account  of  the 
angel  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  and  of  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery/*  The  first  of  these  is  wanting  in  Codd.  Vat. 
and  Sinai't.,  while  two  Codd.,  D  and  L,  give  each  a  differ- 
ent text  from  the  received  text.  Besides,  Eusebius,  Jer- 
ome, and  others  remark  the  absence  of  the  section  in  the 
most  accurate  manuscripts.  It  is  found,  however,  in  several 
manuscripts  and  versions,  and  Irenaeus  is  the  first  among 
the  early  Christian  writers  to  mention  it.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  these  verses  are  not  from  the  author  of  the 
second  Gospel,  but  were  added  by  a  later  writer  or  a 

*  Mark  xvi.  9—20  ;  John  v.  4  and  vii.  53— viii.  12. 


1 8  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

copyist  of  the  second  century.  They  may  have  been 
taken  from  one  of  the  many  lost  writings  touching  the 
life  of  Jesus  which  were  in  existence  in  the  first  centuries, 
and  are  mentioned  by  Luke  in  the  prologue  to  his  Gospel, 
or  they  may  be  a  fragment  of  the  oral  tradition  which 
found  its  way  into  the  record,  no  one  knows  how  or  when. 
A  comparison  of  this  section  with  the  Gospel  to  which  it 
is  attached,  in  respect  to  style  and  contents,  shows  how 
slight  was  the  difference  among  the  first  generations  of 
Christians  between  those  narratives  which  we  now  accept 
as  historical,  and  those  which  we  reject  as  legendary.  The 
interpolation  in  John  v.  4  doubtless  had  a  legendary 
origin.  The  words  are  wanting  in  Codd.  Vat.,  SinaTt., 
Ephr.,  Bezae,and  in  several  old  versions.  The  case  is  simi- 
lar, so  far  as  the  testimony  of  manuscripts  is  concerned,  with 
respect  to  the  section,  John  vii.  53-viii.  12,  containing  the 
account  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery.  In  addition  to 
the  external  testimony,  which  is  against  it,  criticism  calls 
attention  to  the  language  as  unlike  that  of  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  in  the  use  of  single  words  and  phrases. 
That  it  found  its  way  into  the  Gospel  out  of  the  oral 
tradition  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  held  in  high  repute 
in  the  second  century,  seems  highly  probable. 

c. — Dogmatic  Changes. 

A  few  readings  are  found  which  appear  to  have  had 
their  origin  in  a  dogmatic  interest,  and  to  have  been  made 
in  order  to  bring  the  teachings  of  the  Gospels  into  accord 
with  the  customs  of  a  certain  period  or  with  its  prevailing 
opinions.  Accordingly,  it  is  thought  by  some  that  the 
reading  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  flaym'ffavTet,  "  having  bap- 
tized," found  in  some  manuscripts  in  place  of  ftanri  ^OVTSZ, 
"  baptizing,"  was  inserted  in  the  interest  of  infant  baptism, 


THE  TEXT.  19 

which  was  practised  after  the  third  century.  The  former 
reading  is,  however,  supported  by  the  high  authority  of 
the  Vatican  manuscript.  On  account  of  the  similarity  of  the 
Greek  forms  of  the  two  words,  Immer  is  perhaps  charge- 
able with  drawing  a  too  hasty  conclusion,  when  he  pro- 
nounces this  "  without  doubt  "  a  dogmatic  change.  The 
undoubtedly  spurious  7rpK)roTOKov7  "  first-born,"  in  Matt, 
i.  25,  may  have  been  omitted  from  some  manuscripts  in  the 
interest  of  the  doctrine  of  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary. 
There  can  be  no  question,  however,  of  the  influence  of  a 
dogmatic  interest  in  the  reading,  Luke  ii.  33,  "Joseph," 
for  "  his  father,"  and  in  verse  43  of  the  same  chapter, 
"  Joseph  and  his  mother,"  for  "  his  parents."  The  latter 
reading  in  both  the  passages  referred  to  has  been  adopted 
by  Tischendorf. 

6. SOME  PRINCIPLES  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

The  process  of  textual  criticism  is  not  altogether  gov- 
erned by  general  rules.  The  true  critic  cannot  be  re- 
stricted by  a  mechanical  method,  but  must  move  freely 
among  his  materials,  under  the  direction  of  principle, 
indeed,  but  not  the  less  of  judgment  and  insight.  The 
first  and  indispensable  requisite  to  a  sound  criticism  is  a 
knowledge  of  the  relative  critical  worth  of  the  most  im- 
portant manuscripts.  The  weight  to  be  allowed  to  a 
manuscript  in  deciding  a  critical  question  as  to  a  reading 
depends  partly  upon  its  age  and  partly  upon  its  relative 
accuracy  in  comparison  with  the  others.  The  Vatican  and 
Sinai'tic  manuscripts,  for  example,  not  only  date  from  a  rel- 
atively high  antiquity,  but  omit  very  many  readings  which 
are  regarded  as  spurious  in  the  later  manuscripts. 
Besides,  these  two  manuscripts  agree  in  a  majority  of 
the  readings.  Among  the  chief  guides  in  the  procedure 


20  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

of  textual  criticism  are  the  following  general  principles, 
recognized  in  the  main  by  Tischendorf,  and  given 
according  to  Immer's  classification:  I.  No  critical  con- 
jecture is  to  be  admitted  unless  it  is  supported  by  at 
least  one  of  the  ancient  witnesses.  2.  The  oldest  readings, 
although  supported  by  few  witnesses,  generally  deserve 
the  preference  over  the  later,  even  when  these  latter  are 
more  extensively  confirmed.  3.  The  oldest  witnesses  are 
so  much  the  more  assured  as  they  are  the  better  supported 
by  witnesses  of  different  sorts,  as  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
quotations  from  the  fathers,  or  by  testimony  of  different 
origins,  for  example,  oriental  and  occidental.  Every  pas- 
sage is  to  be  regarded  as  a  traditional  addition  which  is 
omitted  by  the  oldest  witnesses,  or  designated  as  doubt- 
ful from  a  trustworthy  source :  when  it  presents  a  striking 
number  of  variants ;  when  it  shows  a  joining,  breaks  the 
connection,  or  at  least  when  it  may  be  omitted  without 
disturbing  the  connection  ;  when  it  shows  a  style  deviating 
from  that  of  the  writer.  Again,  a  word  or  a  sentence  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  gloss  when  the  expression  in  question 
does  not  have  the  oldest  and  best  witnesses  in  its  favor, 
that  is  to  say,  is  not  established  by  the  most  trustworthy 
quotations  and  the  most  ancient  and  accurate  manuscripts ; 
when  it  appears  to  be  intended  to  remove  an  ethical  or 
dogmatic  difficulty ;  and  when  it  explains  and  relieves  a 
thought  hard  to  understand.  In  such  cases  the  more 
offensive  or  harder  reading  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  less 
offensive  and  easier  one,  if  the  former  has  a  strong  exter- 
nal confirmation.  The  principle  is  accordingly  followed 
which  finds  illustration  in  the  example  previously  adduced 
of  the  reading,  "  in  the  prophets,"  for  "  Isaiah  the  prophetj" 
that  of  two  readings  that  one  is  te  be  rejected  which 
betrays  itself  as  intended  to  remove  an  offence,  and  that 


THE  TEXT.  21 

one  to  be  retained  which  furnishes  occasion  for  the  scruple, 
provided  that  the  supposed  correct  reading  has  a  prepon- 
derance of  critical  testimony  in  its  favor.  But  the  reading 
which  betrays  itself  as  a  correction  is  then  only  to  be 
decidedly  rejected,  and  that  which  is  regarded  as  genuine 
on  internal  grounds  to  be  preferred  when  the  latter  is  sup- 
ported at  least  by  one,  or  still  better  by  several  witnesses, 
and,  indeed,  of  different  sorts,  as  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
quotations.  The  reading  which  removes  a  difficulty,  being 
suspicious,  is  to  give  place  to  a  more  incorrect  or  harder 
reading  when  the  latter  has  the  support  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  oldest  manuscripts.  The  critical  judgment 
must  always  be  grounded  as  well  upon  an  appreciation  of 
the  external  witnesses  as  upon  internal  probabilities.  In 
case  these  two  contradict  each  other,  no  general  rule  can  be 
laid  down.  The  one  comprehensive  rule  in  reference  to 
the  internal  grounds  is  that  the  original  reading  is  that 
one  from  which  the  origin  of  the  other  may  be  explained. 
These  principles  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  arbitrary  or 
as  a  priori 'in  their  origin.  They  are  the  result  of  a  pains- 
taking and  learned  study  of  the  manuscripts,  quotations, 
and  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  and  are  as  nearly  scien- 
tific in  their  nature  as  under  the  conditions  they  could  be. 
They  are  the  product  of  a  careful  induction  from  the  facts 
and  phenomena  which  are  presented  in  the  vast  amount  of 
materials  which  come  into  the  hands  of  the  textual  critic. 
No  presumption  favoring  a  supposed  exceptional  charac- 
ter of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  has  stood  in  the  way 
of  the  rigorous  application  to  them  of  the  principles  which 
govern  the  treatment  of  all  ancient  remains  of  the  kind. 
Such  a  presumption,  and,  indeed,  any  a-priori  theory 
which  should  attempt  to  remove  them  from  the  class  of 
literature  in  general,  and  shield  them  from  critical  scrutiny 


22  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

as  sacred,  would  defeat  the  very  ends  which  textual  criti- 
cism proposes  to  itself.  Westcott  has  well  remarked  that, 
"if,  indeed,  there  were  any  thing  in  the  circumstances 
attending  the  'first  publication  of  the  New  Testament 
which  might  seem  to  remove  it  from  the  ordinary  fortune 
of  books,  then  it  would  be  impossible  not  to  respect  the 
pious  sentiment  which  accepts  the  early  text  as  the  im- 
mediate work  of  Providence.  But  the  history  shows  too 
many  marks  of  human  frailty  to  admit  of  such  a  supposi- 
tion. The  text  itself  contains  palpable  and  admitted 
errors  in  every  way  analogous  to  those  which  occur  in 
the  first  classical  texts.  The  conclusion  is  obvious,  and  it 
is  superstition  rather  than  reverence  which  refuses  to 
apply  to  the  service  of  Scripture  the  laws  which  have 
restored  so  much  of  their  native  beauty  to  other  ancient 
writings." 

7. — THE    VERSIONS. 

Only  those  versions  will  be  considered  which  belong 
to  the  material  ©f  importance  employed  in  the  criticism  of 
the  text,  that  is  to  say,  a  few  of  the  most  ancient.  It  is 
a  commonplace  of  textual  criticism  in  reference  to  ver- 
sions that  so  far  as  they  admit  of  a  re-translation  into 
Greek  they  may  serve  as  secondary  witnesses  at  least  for 
the  original  text.  Literal  translations  are  accordingly 
regarded  as  of  the  greatest  importance.  Since  in  particu- 
lar the  Latin  version,  Itala,  and  the  Syriac,  Peschito,  are 
older  than  the  oldest  existing  manuscripts,  they  would  be 
of  great  weight  in  the  critical  determination  of  the  text, 
were  it  not  that  their  own  text  appears  to  have  suffered 
much  from  corruptions  and  in  some  doctrinally  important 
passages  to  have  been  conformed  to  the  later  Greek  text 
or  to  the  Vulgate.  They  are,  then,  only  especially  help- 
ful to  textual  criticism  so  far  as  fragments  of  them  have 


THE  TEXT.  23 

been  preserved  in  citations  which  have  come  to  hand  in 
the  early  Christian  writings.  We  have  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  a  Latin  translation  of  the  Gospels  at  about 
the  end  of  the  second  century.  It  is  distinguished  from 
the  later  Vulgate  by  the  name  of  Itala.  Of  this  Bian- 
chini  published  in  1749  Codd.  Veronensis,  Vercellensis, 
and  Brixianus,  and  Tischendorf,  in  1847  Evangelium  Palati- 
num,  etc.  The  Codex  Veronensis  dates  from  the  fourth  or 
fifth  century,  the  Vercellensis  from  about  the  middle  of 
the  fourth,  and  the  Brixianus  from  the  sixth.  The  trans- 
lation is  characterized  as  strictly  literal,  and  the  language 
as  awkward  and  frequently  offensive  to  Latin  usage  on 
account  partly  of  its  provincialisms  and  syntactical  errors. 
The  translator  (or  translators)  appears  not  to  have  been 
well  versed  in  Latin,  and  to  have  prepared  a  work  which 
better  served  the  needs  of  the  common  people  than  pleased 
the  learned.  It  is  not  surprising  that  after  two  centu- 
ries the  manuscripts  of  such  a  translation  should  present 
a  "  variegated  mixture."  This  version  probably  origi- 
nated in  proconsular  Africa,  where  after  the  Roman  con- 
quest the  Latin  language  became  dominant.  The  numerous 
citations  made  by  the  Latin  writers  of  the  Church  from 
Tertullian  to  Gregory  the  Great  furnish  to  some  degree 
an  apparatus  for  the  restoration  of  this  version,  and  in 
them  our  oldest  documents  for  the  Itala  find  some  con- 
firmations of  their  readings.  But  the  loose  manner  of 
making  quotations  which  prevailed  in  that  time  and  the 
differences  in  the  manuscripts  in  use  render  this  source  of 
information  very  untrustworthy.  The  difficulties  of  restor- 
ing an  edition  of  the  Itala  by  a  comparison  of  all  the 
fragments  accessible  are  probably  not  too  strongly  stated 
by  Holtzmann,  when  he  says  that  their  removal  would 
require  the  labor  of  more  than  one  human  life. 

The  confused  and  corrupt  condition  of  the  Itala,  whose 


24  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

text  suffered  fresh  distortions  with  every  new  copy  which 
was  made,  caused  the  preparation  of  a  more  correct  and 
homogeneous  version  to  be  felt  as  an  urgent  necessity. 
For  this  great  task  one  man  alone,  perhaps,  in  his  age 
was  qualified,  Jerome,  "  the  most  learned  westerner  of 
his  own  and  many  centuries."  Commissioned  by  the 
Roman  Bishop,  Damasus,  he  undertook  the  work  with 
many  misgivings  and  no  little  apprehension  and  anxiety 
as  to  charges  against  his  orthodoxy  which  were  likely  to 
be  made.  He  expected,  as  he  wrote  in  his  Prefatio  in 
Hvangelia  ad  Damasum,  that  every  one  "  doctus  pariter  et 
indoctus"  would  cry  out  against  him,  "  me  falsarium  me 
esse  sacrilegum"  Under  the  influence  of  this  solicitude, 
which  the  event  proved  to  have  been  only  too  truly  pro- 
phetic, he  proceeded  cautiously,  correcting  only  the  most 
palpable  errors,  ut  his  tantuin  qua  sensum  videbantur 
mutare  correctis  reliqua  manere  pateremur  ut  fuerant, 
and  in  383  the  Vulgate  version  of  the  Gospels  was  com- 
pleted. Important  for  the  Old  Testament  which  he 
translated  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  his  work  was  of  less 
worth  for  the  New  Testament,  which  he  can  only  be  said 
to  have  improved.  For  fear  of  giving  offence  he  left  un- 
changed many  erroneous  renderings  which  he  thought  to 
be  harmless.  Critically  regarded,  the  Vulgate  is  import- 
ant as  a  translation  of  the  biblical  text  as  it  was  at  about 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  This  version  made  its 
way  to  recognition  against  great  and  determined  opposi- 
tion. The  African  Church  declared  against  it,  and  the 
Roman  Bishops  in  undertaking  its  support  entered  upon 
"a  conflict  of  two  hundred  years."  Only  in  the  sixth 
century  did  it  appear  to  have  gained  ground,  and  not 
until  the  ninth  was  its  victory  won.  Used  for  centuries 
side  by  side  with  the  older  translation,  it  was  inevitable 
that  its  text  should  be  even  more  corrupted  than  under 


THE  TEXT,  25 

ordinary  circumstances  it  would  have  been.  By  com- 
mand of  Charlemagne  a  revision  of  the  text  was  under- 
taken by  Alcuin  who  in  80 1  presented  him  with  the 
Gospels  in  an  improved  text.  This  emperor  himself  is 
said  to  have  been  occupied  in  his  old  age  with  correction 
of  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate.  The  corrupt  condition  of 
the  text  remained,  however,  and  in  1276  Roger  Bacon  com- 
plained that  readings  and  corrupters  were  equal  in  num- 
ber, "  quot  sunt  lectiones  per  mundum,  tot  sunt  correctores 
sen  magis  corruptores. 

A  translation  of  the  New  Testament  into  Syriac  was 
made  at  about  the  end  of  the  second  century,  according  to 
the  best  authorities.*  It  is  met  with  in  manuscripts  since 
the  ninth  century  under  the  name  oiPeschito,  which  accord- 
ing to  Eichhorn  means  "  the  literal,"  according  to  others, 
"  the  translated,"  or  again, "  the  simple,"  "  the  sincere."  It 
does  not  appear  to  have  gained  wide  recognition  and  to 
have  displaced  other  translations  before  the  year  350. 
A  literal  translation  it  is  not,  though  in  the  main  true. 
Its  worth  for  purposes  of  textual  criticism  is  questionable, 
since  the  text  lies  under  the  suspicion  of  having  been  modi- 
fied by  the  Antiochian  scholars  in  order  to  make  it  conform 
to  their  Greek  manuscripts.  Not  only  are  some  interpo- 
lations wanting,  as  John  vii.  53— viii.  12,  but  also  whole 
books  of  the  minor  Epistles.  It  is  not  of  great  importance 
apart  from  hermeneutical  purposes,  for  the  reason  that  no 
thorough  critical  investigation  of  the  text  has  been  made, 
and  all  editions  of  it  are  very  defective.  Fragments  of  the 
Gospels  in  Syriac,  perhaps  written  in  the  fifth  century, 
have  been  discovered  in  Egypt  and  brought  to  the  British 
Museum.  They  were  published  in  1858  by  Cureton  under 

*  Tischendorf,  Wann  wurden  unsere  Evangelien  verfasst,  p.  9  ;  Wichel- 
haus,  De  N.  T.  versione  Syriaca  antiqua  quam  Peschito  vocant,  p.  63. 


26  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

the  title,  "  Remains  of  a  very  Ancient  Recension  of  the 
Four  Gospels  in  Syriac." 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  brief  survey  of  the  for- 
tune of  the  text  of  the  Gospels  that  textual  criticism  has 
to  do  with  facts  and  phenomena  purely  human  and  his- 
torical. Whatever  may  be  the  conclusion  which  men 
reach  respecting  the  original  composition  of  these  writings 
and  the  inspiration  of  their  authors,  there  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  any  divine  intervention  for  the  preservation 
of  their  words  from  the  common  fortune  of  ancient  lit- 
erary productions  in  rude  and  uncritical  ages.  Accident, 
carelessness,  caprice,  and  dogmatism  have  contributed  to 
embarrass  the  scholar  in  his  unachievable  task  of  restoring 
the  original  text.  The  influence  of  a  mother-church  upon 
its  dependents,  the  fame  of  a  copyist,  of  a  copy  itself,  a 
prevailing  taste  in  some  province,  have  conspired  to  give  a 
local  coloring  to  the  text.  The  influence  of  a  single  manu- 
script or  version  may  be  traced  in  others  of  even  a  remote 
origin.  The  surprising  relationship  of  the  text  of  tf  to  the 
Itala  may,  indeed,  favor  the  theory  of  a  text  antedating 
both,  which  approached  the  original,  and  maintained  a 
neutral  relation  to  the  locally  determined  differences  ;  but 
this  is  conjecture,  and  conjecture  too  of  only  an  approxi- 
mation. The  oldest  versions  present  a  text  so  much  cor- 
rupted that  in  the  use  of  them  there  is  imposed  upon  the 
critic  the  double  task  of  making  a  critical  recension  of 
their  texts  and  of  that  for  the  restoration  of  which  he 
invokes  their  aid.  Finally,  when  he  has  in  a  measure 
mastered  the  immense  mass  of  material  which  his  task 
brings  to  his  hand,  there  still  lies  before  him  the  unex- 
plored and  unexplorable  terra  incognita  which  occupies  the 
period  extending  from  the  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 
tury to  the  time  when  the  first  express  witnesses  to  the 
text  appear. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CANON. 

THE  history  of  the  canon  of  the  Gospels  is  a  study 
of  the  early  fortune  of  these  writings  as  literature, 
of  the  use  that  was  made  of  them,  and  of  the  estimation 
in  which  they  were  held  from  the  time  when  they  first 
came  into  the  light  of  a  literary  period  until  they  were 
united,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  kindred  records,  in  the 
New  Testament.  More  extensive  and  trustworthy  his- 
torical materials  are  here  at  our  disposal  than  in  the  study 
of  the  text.  The  literature  of  the  Christian  Church 
which  immediately  succeeded  the  Gospels,  bears  uncon- 
scious testimony  to  the  use  which  was  made  of  them  and 
to  the  reputation  which  they  had  during  the  period  of 
the  formation  of  the  canon,  which  may  be  said  to  have 
occupied  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  and  the 
beginning  of  the  third.  The  manner,  indeed,  in  which 
the  Gospels  were  treated  in  the  Christian  and  so-called 
heretical  literature  of  this  period  is  precisely  the  question 
to  be  considered.  For  the  study  of  the  Gospel-canon  is 
not  an  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  Gospels  with  respect 
to  their  divine  authority,  nor  should  it  be  controlled  by 
an  interest  to  place  them  on  a  level  with  productions 
merely  human.  Whether  their  authors  were  inspired,  or 
wrote  as  ordinary  men,  are  questions  with  which  this  study 
is  not  concerned.  If,  as  the  result  of  the  investigation  on 
which  we  are  entering,  it  shall  appear  that  the  Gospels 

27 


28  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

were  at  one  time  regarded  in  the  Christian  communities 
as  merely  human  productions,  and  at  another  as  the  infal- 
lible works  of  men  under  divine  guidance  and  instruction, 
in  each  case  we  shall  have  nothing  more  than  an  external, 
historical  fact,  a  matter  of  opinion,  which  may,  indeed,  be 
explicable  in  its  genesis,  but  will  decisively  answer  no 
questions  respecting  the  internal  character  of  the  writings. 

The  inquiry  in  question,  then,  being  historical,  it  is 
evident  that  its  purpose  would  be  defeated  if  its  procedure 
should  be  controlled  by  traditional  presumptions  or  dog- 
matic opinions.  With  traditions  it  has  nothing  to  do 
except  to  investigate  them  historically.  Whatever  im- 
portance ought  to  be  attached  to  them  can  be  determined 
only  by  the  results  of  an  historical  investigation.  The  aim 
should  constantly  be  kept  in  mind  to  follow  the  earliest 
traditions  respecting  the  Gospels  to  their  sources,  and 
critically  to  ascertain  their  worth  by  a  study  of  the  influ- 
ences and  environments  by  which  they  were  determined. 
A  tradition  concerning  the  Gospels  which  arose  in  or  near 
the  apostolic  age  will  naturally  be  deemed  very  important, 
since  it  may  fairly  be  assumed  to  have  been  formed  under 
the  influence  of  their  authors  or  of  men  who  enjoyed 
intercourse  with  them.  It  must,  however,  be  genetically 
studied,  and  subjected  to  critical  examination,  precisely 
as  traditions  of  a  later  origin  should  be  treated. 

What,  then,  is  precisely  the  idea  of  canonicity  which 
must  be  kept  in  mind  in  this  study,  and  alone  comports 
with  a  truly  historical  examination  of  the  canon  of  the 
Gospels?  What,  in  a  word,  does  it  signify  that  certain 
biographies  of  Jesus  have  been  selected  out  of  the  con- 
siderable number  known  to  have  been  written  and  circu- 
lated, and  have  been  honored  with  an  exclusive  authority 
as  canonical?  It  is  evident  that  an  inquiry  proceeding 


THE   CANON.  29 

upon  historical  data  will  naturally,  in  the  first  place, 
establish  the  fact  of  such  a  selection,  and  show  that 
certain  writings  began  at  a  particular  time  to  have  a 
distinction  and  repute  as  accounts  of  the  life  and  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  above  all  others  of  a  similar  character.  So 
far  as  reasons  may  appear  among  the  historical  facts 
accessible  to  the  student  for  this  preference  shown  to  any 
books,  it  plainly  belongs  to  the  task  of  the  historian  of 
the  canon  to  set  them  forth  to  the  advantage  of  such 
books.  But  it  is  just  here  that  the  limits  of  a  purely 
historical  investigation  clearly  appear.  For  the  reason 
why  men  accord  to  some  writings  a  preference  over  others 
must  lie  in  their  conviction  of  the  superiority  of  those 
over  these  in  point  of  literary  excellence,  trustworthiness, 
origin,  or  other  similar  considerations.  History,  however, 
can  only  record  the  acts  and  opinions  of  men,  and  deter- 
mine their  importance  from  the  relation  which  the  persons 
in  question  may  be  found  to  have  held  to  the  matters  on 
which  their  judgments  or  actions  proceeded.  The  history 
of  the  canon  of  the  Gospels  would,  accordingly,  go  beyond 
its  province,  if  it  were  to  enter  upon  a  critical  examination 
of  these  writings,  and  pass  judgment  upon  their  divine  or 
human  origin  or  authority.  Tradition  may  assign  an 
apostolic  origin  to  a  certain  book,  and  deny  it  to  another. 
The  historian  of  the  canon  must  record  this  tradition,  and 
may  properly  test  its  grounds.  But  what  an  apostolic 
origin  may  add  to  the  worth  of  one  book,  or  its  absence 
detract  from  that  of  another,  it  does  not  belong  to  him 
to  determine.  The  canonicity  of  the  Gospels,  then,  so 
far  as  the  present  historical  inquiry  has  to  do  with  it,  is 
simply  the  reputation  in  which  they  were  held  during  a 
certain  historical  period  as  the  best  or  most  trustworthy 
among  the  current  writings  of  a  similar  character.  Just 


30  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

as  certain  writings  of  other  ancient  literatures  have  been 
preserved  and  honored  as  classical  by  the  common  judg- 
ment of  men,  so  a  few  books  on  the  life  and  works  of 
Jesus  were  early  regarded  as  most  worthy  of  confidence 
and  most  excellent  as  literary  productions,  and  were 
separated  from  others  as  canonical.*  Classical  and  canoni- 
cal from  the  historical  point  of  view  are  substantially  of 
the  same  import. 

Even  if  we  consider  the  term  canonical  from  another 
point  of  view  according  to  which  the  canonicity  of  a 
biblical  writing  is  regarded  as  determined  by  its  genuine- 
ness, or  by  its  conformity  to  Christian  doctrine  as  set  forth 
in  writings  of  undisputed  validity  and  eminence,  it  will  be 
found  to  have  its  origin  in  an  act  of  judgment  very  similar 
to  that  by  which  some  writings  are  called  classical  in 
distinction  from  all  others.  For  the  discussion  of  ques- 
tions of  this  sort  is  always  carried  on  with  reference  to  a 
certain  standard,  conformity  to  whidi  determines  the 
canonicity  referred  to,  just  as  conformity  to  a  literary 
standard  marks  a  writing  as  classical.  It  is  doubtless 
from  this  point  of  view  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Apocalypse  are  sometimes  treated  as  if  their 
canonicity  were  open  to  question,  and  that  Luther  called 
the  Epistle  of  James  an  epistle  of  straw.  Neither  its 
supposed  apostolical  authorship  nor  the  decree  of  an 
ecclesiastical  council  assigning  it  a  place  on  the  canonical 

*  Eusebius  furnishes  a  confirmation  of  this  view  of  the  matter  when, 
writing  of  certain  books,  the  Gospels  of  Peter,  Thomas,  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  by  Andrew  and  John,  and  other  writings  "adduced  by  heretics," 
he  says  :  "The  character  ®f  the  style  itself  is  very  different  from  that  of  the 
apostles,  and  the  sentiments  and  the  purport  of  those  things  which  are  ad- 
vanced in  them,  deviating  as  far  as  possible  from  sound  orthodoxy,  evidently 
prove  that  they  are  the  fictions  of  heretical  men,  whence  they  are  not  only 
to  be  ranked  among  the  spurious  writings,  but  are  to  be  rejected  as  alto- 
gether absurd  and  impious." — Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  25. 


THE    CANON.  31 

list  can  permanently  establish  the  real  canonicity  of  a 
writing.  Very  likely  a  feeling  or  judgment  like  that  just 
referred  to  was  an  important  if  not  a  determining  factor  in 
the  formation  of  the  New-Testament  canon  in  the  early 
Church,  and  the  recognition  everywhere  and  by  all,  nbiquc 
et  ab  omnibus,  of  certain  writings  as  canonical  was  the 
result  of  their  supposed  conformity  to  a  standard  which 
existed  in  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the  time.  The 
term  canonicity,  however,  when  applied  to  a  biblical 
writing  to  mark  it  as  infallible  or  inspired  is  dogmatic, 
and  has  no  other  foundation  than  an  assumption  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  writer.^  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say 
that  no  one  of  the  writers  of  the  four  Gospels  has  set  up 
any  such  claim  for  himself  as  dogmatic  theologians  have 
gratuitously  made  for  all  of  them.  With  this  sort  of 
canonicity  it  is  evident  that  criticism  can  have  nothing  to 
do,  since  it  admits  of  no  presumptions  of  the  kind  as  to 
the  character  of  the  Gospels,  but  requires  that  the  results 
of  the  critical  process  be  awaited  as  the  only  right  ground 
of  all  judgments  regarding  their  origin,  purpose,  and 
claims  to  be  regarded  as  exceptional  productions. 

The  historical  treatment  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  never  been  regarded  with  favor  from  the  dog- 
matic point  of  view,  and  is,  indeed,  of  modern  origin. 
For  a  long  time  the  belief  was  entertained  that  the  Church 
had  always  had  the  same  canon.  The  old  and  even  the 
new  orthodoxy  down  to  Augusti  in  1832*  believed  that 
John  made  a  collection  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  put  a  seal  upon  it  in  the  words  in  Rev.  xxii.  1 8, 
19,  "  If  any  one  shall  add  unto  these  things  God  will  add 
unto  him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book,"  etc. 
The  appeal  to  the  authority  of  John  is  supposed  to  rest 

*  Versuch  einer  Einleitung  in  die  heiligen  Schriften. 


32  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

on  a  misapprehension  of  a  passage  in  Eusebius,  Hist. 
EccL,  iii.  24,  to  the  effect  that  this  apostle  approved  the 
synoptical  Gospels,  and  confirmed  them  for  use  in  the 
Church.  Accordingly  it  is  said  in  the  verses  in  the  library 
of  Eugenius  of  Toledo  of  the  seventh  century, 

"  Summus  el  egregius  congcssit  cuncta  Joannes.'"  * 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  which  the  history  of  the  canon 
clearly  shows  that  the  early  Church,  at  least  after  the 
second  century,  exercised  considerable  critical  discrimina- 
tion regarding  the  canonicity  of  the  New-Testament 
writings,  and  that  in  the  classical  passage  in  Eusebius, 
Hist.  EccL,  iii.  25,  the  doubts  respecting  certain  books 
since  accepted  as  canonical  which  prevailed  as  early  as  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century  are  set  forth  in  detail,  it 
was  not  until  the  first  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century 
that  these  doubts,  already  expressed  thirteen  centuries 
before,  began  to  be  brought  forward  again.  Even  in  1707 
Mill  maintained  that  the  Gospels  were  collected  about 
the  year  100,  and  the  Epistles  about  1 10.  But  Semler's 
thorough  criticism  showed  that  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament  was  a  gradual  growth  which  only  reached  a 
relative  completion  towards  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, f  He  also  called  attention  to  the  catholic  tendency 
towards  a  union  of  the  opposing  factions  in  the  early 
Church  as  an  important  factor  in  the  process  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  canon.  Eichhorn  showed  the  settlement  of 
the  canon  to  have  been  the  result  of  a  long  historical 
development,  and  called  attention  to  Marcion's  collection 
of  New-Testament  writings  as  marking  a  tendency  in  this 
direction.  \ 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.    2te  Aufl.    1886,  p.  91. 
f  Abhandlung  von  freier  Untersuch.  des  Kanons,  1771-5. 
\  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.    1804. 


THE    CANON.  33 

I. THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE. 

The  apostolic  age  furnished  few  conditions  favorable  to 
the  formation  of  a  canon  of  such  Christian  writings  as 
were  then  in  existence,  or,  indeed,  to  embodiment  in 
literary  form  of  the  ideas  which  were  destined  through 
literature  to  exert  so  vast  an  influence  upon  mankind. 
The  spiritual  vitality  and  persistence  of  the  teachings  and 
life  of  the  great  Nazarene  are  not  more  strikingly  illus- 
trated than  by  the  fact  that,  unhonored  by  a  great  literary 
expression  and  committed  to  the  fortune  of  oral  tradition, 
they  have  survived  to  become  the  most  fruitful  agencies 
in  human  civilization.  Had  the  impulse  which  came 
from  the  life  of  Jesus  spent  itself  in  a  great  Christian  epic, 
there  might  never  have  been  a  Christian  Church.  The 
absence  of  a  literary  expression  suited  to  the  taste  of  the 
cultivated  was  the  good  fortune  of  Christianity.  Its 
positive  good  fortune,  too,  it  was  that  just  as  the  com- 
mon people  heard  gladly  the  teachings  of  its  founder  and 
the  learned  among  his  hearers  took  offence  at  him,  so  in 
the  earliest  course  of  its  development  it  made  its  way 
among  such  common  people  and  "  broke  its  path  from 
below  upward."  The  learned  and  the  scribes  were  not 
among  the  first  disciples  of  Jesus.  Perhaps  no  church  in 
the  middle  of  the  first  century  was  more  cultivated  than 
that  at  Corinth  ;  yet  Paul  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians 
reminds  them  that  not  many  of  them  are  "  wise  men 
after  the  fashion  of  this  world,  not  many  mighty,  not 
many  noble." 

Unfavorable  also  to  the  formation  of  a  canon  was  the 
absence  of  a  true  historical  perspective  in  the  apostolic 
age.  Christianity  was  not  then  looked  upon  as  destined 
to  an  historical  development  and  a  world-conquering  do- 
minion extending  through  many  centuries.  Prophets 
3 


34  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

there  were,  indeed,  in  that  time,  according  to  Paul ;  but 
no  one  of  them  appears  to  have  been  endowed  with  a 
vision  far-seeing  enough  to  forecast  the  wonderful  history 
of  eighteen  Christian  ages.  On  the  contrary,  the  horizon 
was  very  limited  which  shut  in  the  view  of  the  men  of 
those  times.  The  "  last  days "  were  near  at  hand  in 
which  they  expected  the  great  Christophany,  which  to 
them  was  the  only  truly  Messianic  appearance  of  him 
who  had  ascended  that  he  might  come  again  in  glory  and 
power.  *  Under  such  conditions  it  were  unreasonable  to 
look  for  literary  productions  intended  for  the  instruction 
of  future  ages  or  for  the  collecting  of  existing  writings  to 
be  handed  down  for  any  remote  result.  That  men  like 
the  apostles,  drawn  from  humble  avocations,  f  should  in 
such  a  situation  occupy  themselves  with  matters  of  this 
kind  is  a  priori  improbable,  except  that  under  the  spur  of 
necessity  and  for  immediate  ends  they  might  set  down 
some  things  in  a  fragmentary  way  in  writing.  From  Paul 
more  than  from  any  other  man  in  the  apostolic  age  might 
one  look  for  a  profound  apprehension  of  the  future  for- 
tune of  the  Christian  religion.  But  even  from  him  we 
have  only  writings  for  the  occasion.  His  letters  were 
called  forth  by  the  immediate  needs  of  the  communities 
to  which  they  were  addressed,  and  relate  largely  to  affairs 
of  the  moment,  to  personal  considerations,  to  business,  or 
are  occupied  with  the  then  important  but  really  quite 
temporary  question  of  the  adaptation  of  Christian  doc- 
trines to  the  acceptance  of  Jewish  inquirers  and  dispu- 
tants. The  permanent  influence  of  writings  like  those  of 

*  i  Thess.  i.  10  ;  iv.  16,  17  and  numerous  other  passages.  An  able  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  has  been  made  by  Dr.  Forbes  in  Essays,  etc.  by 
Fifteen  Clergymen,  Boston,  1889. 

f  Acts    iv.    13,     "  unlearned    and    common    men,"    aypdjj.jj.arot   ual 


THE   CANON.  35 

Paul,  which  were  called  forth  by  local  and  temporary  in- 
terests, and  even  their  attainment  of  immortality  as 
literature  are  one  thing,  and  the  author's  own  thought 
and  intention  respecting  them  are  quite  another.  There 
is  no  evidence  and  scarcely  a  probability  that  Paul  in- 
tended his  Epistles  to  constitute  a  sacred  canonical  litera- 
ture for  appeal  and  citation  by  future  generations.  He 
sometimes,  indeed,  refers  to  them,  but  no  less  to  his  own 
spoken  words  and  to  the  apostolic  tradition  as  of  equal 
authority.  *  His  preaching  he  calls  "  the  word  of 
God,"f  and  never  pretends  to  a  special  spiritual  charisma, 
or  inspiration,  for  writing.  Indeed,  he  places  himself  on 
the  same  footing  with  other  believers  of  his  time  as  to  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit,  such  as  speaking  with  tongues,  and 
claims  no  difference  from  them  in  kind,  but  rather  recog- 
nizes the  endowment  with  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  common 
grace  and  privilege  of  all  who  had  accepted  Christ.  \  The 
Old  Testament  is  the  only  writing  to  which  he  appeals  as 
an  authority.  Passages  from  this  he  applies  by  a  some- 
what strained  allegorizing  to  the  circumstances  of  his 
time,  as  if  their  authors  had  written  with  express  refer- 
ence to  its  conditions  and  needs.  § 

Although  in  the  apostolic  age  no  need  of  a  canon  of 
the  New  Testament  was  felt,  and  no  steps  were  taken  to 
form  one,  tendencies  in  this  direction  may  be  traced  in  it. 
These  show  themselves  in  connection  with  some  of  the 
writings  which  are  the  oldest  in  our  present  canon.  For 
a  certain  public  recognition,  or  canonizing,  may  be 
allowed  in  the  reading  in  the  Churches  to  which  they 
were  written  of  certain  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  |  There 

*  i  Cor.  xv.  1-3  ;  I  Thess.  ii.  u,  13.  f  I  Thess.  ii.  13. 

\  Gal.  iii.  2,  5  ;  I  Cor.  iii.  16  ;  Rom.  viii.  9  f. 

§  I  Cor.  ix.  9,  10 ;  x.  ii  ;  Gal.  iii.  8.  f  I  Thess.  v.  27. 


36  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

is,  however,  no  intimation  of  any  such  recognition  of  the 
Gospels,  nor  does  the  apostolic  literature  contain  any 
reference  to  them.  A  sort  of  "  oral  canon  "  of  the 
Gospel  existed  in  the  varued  "  words  of  the  Lord," 
\oyoi  xvpwv,  and  we  cannot  but  find  it  surprising  that 
Paul,  writing  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  first  century, 
does  not  show  more  frequent  points  of  contact  with  it. 
He  does,  indeed,  frequently  say  that  he  writes  certain 
things  "  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  or  that  the  Lord  says 
them,  and  not  he,  whereby  he  probably  refers  to  current 
traditions  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus*  ;  and  in  his  account 
of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  he  reproduces 
ostensibly  the  very  words.f  But  in  connection  with  the 
great  events  which  held  the  foremost  place  in  his 
thought,  his  teaching,  and  his  philosophy  of  Christianity 
— the  crucifixion  and  resurrection — there  is  an  entire 
absence  of  the  influence  of  any  historical  tradition  upon 
his  mind.  With  the  earthly  history  of  Jesus  this  man, 
who  had  been  caught  up  into  the  third  heaven,  and  seen 
unspeakable  things,  had  little  concern.  He  went  his  own 
way,  and  "  did  not  confer  with  flesh  and  blood."  It  is 
not,  indeed,  improbable  that  some  of  the  most  important 
sayings  of  Jesus  may  have  been  committed  to  writing  as 
early  as  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  great  Pauline 
Epistles.  An  old  tradition,  in  fact,  runs  to  the  effect  that 
a  writing  ascribed  to  Matthew  was  early  in  circulation,  in 
which  were  set  down  certain  discourses  or  oracles  of 
Christ  J  in  the  vernacular  of  the  people.  §  But  there  is 
no  trace  of  its  use  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  the  date  of 
its  composition  is  altogether  a  matter  of  conjecture. 

*  i  Thess.  iv.  15  ;  I  Cor.  vii.  10,  12  :  ix.  14  ;  xi.  24,  25. 

f  I  Cor.  xi.  23-25.  J  lioyia  Hvpiand. 

§  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 


THE   CANON.  37 

2. — THE    POST-APOSTOLIC    AGE. 

In  the  period  extending  from  about  the  year  70  to  120  of 
our  era  there  existed  conditions  and  were  at  work  influ- 
ences of  considerable  importance  to  the  formation  of  the 
canon.  Here  is  to  be  found  the  prehistorical  material  for 
the  history  of  the  canon.  In  the  conditions  of  this  time  are 
manifest  the  reasons  why  a  collection  of  Christian  writings 
was  not  earlier  made,  and  the  forces  which  were  in  opera- 
tion to  bring  it  about  eventually.  To  one  who  is  able  to 
transport  himself  by  imagination  into  this  age,  and  realize 
its  conditions  and  the  life  of  the  Christian  communities 
in  it,  views  of  the  writings  composing  the  New  Testa- 
ment similar  to  those  entertained  at  the  present  time  by 
believers  will  appear  unthinkable  in  those  people,  and 
much  more  a  pressing  interest  and  zeal  in  the  formation 
of  an  exclusive,  sacred  collection.  The  oral  tradition  of 
the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  was  still  fresh  and  vivid, 
and  was  repeated  by  the  preachers  and  teachers  in  the 
public  assemblies  of  believers.  Almost  the  whole  litera- 
ture of  the  time  being  epistolary,  letters  from  prominent 
leaders  in  the  Churches  must  have  been  frequently 
received  and  read  to  the  congregations,  and  probably  in 
some  instances  passed  on  to  others.  The  Epistles  of 
Paul  were  in  existence,  and  can  hardly  have  failed  to  be 
multiplied  by  copyists  and  circulated  to  some  extent. 
Perhaps  fragmentary  narratives  of  the  life  of  Jesus  may 
have  had  a  similar  fortune.  That  many  such  existed 
appears  from  the  prologue  to  the  third  Gospel,  where 
writings  of  this  kind  are  expressly  mentioned.  To  these 
scattered  writings  no  especial,  exclusive  sanctity  appears 
to  have  been  attached  ;  and  when  our  canonical  Gospels 
were  completed,  and  came  into  the  hands  of  the  people, 
there  could  have  been  no  reason,  either  from  their 


38  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

contents  as  compared  with  other  writings  of  the  kind  in 
circulation,  or  from  any  claims  put  forth  by  their  authors, 
for  regarding  them  as  possessing  a  divine  sanction. 
Indeed,  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  makes  it  very 
apparent  in  the  introduction  to  his  narrative  that  he 
undertakes  the  work  after  the  manner  of  an  ordinary 
biographer  who  wishes  accurately  to  instruct  his  friend. 
Besides,  the  reverence  felt  by  the  Jewish  Christians  for 
the  Old  Testament  must  have  made  them  very  reluctant 
to  place  upon  an  equal  footing  with  it  any  other  writings, 
particularly  such  as  set  up  no  claims  to  inspiration  ;  and 
the  gentile  Christians  who  had  been  under  the  teaching 
of  Paul  must  have  been  imbued  with  a  similar  reverence 
for  the  ancient  oracles.  Add  to  this  that  we  may 
reasonably  assume  that  there  was  carried  over  from  the 
apostolic  age  into  this  the  belief  in  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  common  to  all  Christians,*  and  it  becomes 
evident  that  any  new  writings  must  have  made  their  way 
with  no  little  difficulty  to  recognition  as  sacred  scripture. 
A  canon  in  the  sense  under  consideration  is  conditioned 
upon  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  a  large  number  of  per- 
sons to  accept  certain  writings  and  exclude  others.  Such 
an  agreement  implies  communication  and  intercourse 
which  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  practicable  to 
any  considerable  extent  during  the  period  in  question. 
The  absence  of  an  organization  through  which  a  general 
consensus  might  be  promoted  and  at  length  find  expres- 
sion was  also  at  this  period  a  reason  why  the  formation 
of  a  canon  could  not  be  effected.  In  such  a  condition  of 
affairs  there  could  not  but  be  a  considerable  development 

*  Clem.,  Rom.  I  ad  Cor.  ii.  46  ;  Barnab.  ix.  xvi.  xix.  See  Reuss,  Gesch. 
der  heil.  Schriften  N.  T.,  Eng.  transl.  by  Rev.  E.  L.  Houghton,  2  vols., 
Boston,  1884. 


THE   CANON.  39 

of  individual  freedom  of  opinion  and  independence  in 
isolated  Churches,  and  a  corresponding  narrowness  and 
provincialism  of  judgment  as  well  as  decided  predilections 
in  favor  of  certain  writings.  Accordingly  marked  tenden- 
cies and  preferences  and  tenacious  adherence  to  opin- 
ions might  naturally  be  looked  for,  which  would  operate 
unfavorably  to  the  settlement  of  the  canon.  If  we  add 
to  these  considerations  the  fact  that  the  age  was  uncriti- 
cal, that  is,  not  inclined  in  the  nature  of  the  case  and  not 
moved  by  any  motives  to  undertake  a  recension  of  manu- 
scripts and  to  examine  the  claims  of  writers  to  special 
authority,  when  none  stood  forth  with  pre-eminent  claims 
to  it,  we  shall  find  the  critical  selection  and  sifting  of 
books  and  the  distinguishing  of  them  by  a  general  con- 
sensus as  exclusively  authoritative  the  remotest  of  proba- 
bilities. 

In  the  apostolic  age  there  had  already  broken  out  a 
conflict  between  two  opposed  conceptions  of  Christianity, 
represented  respectively  by  Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  gen- 
tiles, and  the  so-called  "  Pillar-Apostles,"  a  term  applied 
by  Paul  himself  to  those  who  represented  the  Jewish 
tendency.  The  question  at  issue  was  one  of  the  greatest 
moment,  and  it  is  not,  perhaps,  too  much  to  say  that  on 
its  decision  depended  the  entire  historical  development 
and  fortune  of  the  Christian  religion.  A  controversy 
which  was  of  so  great  importance,  and  was  conducted  with 
so  much  earnestness  that  it  left  a  marked  impression  on 
a  considerable  part  of  the  early  literature  of  the  Church, 
could  not  at  once  be  put  to  rest.  Rather  in  the  natural 
course  of  things  we  should  expect  to  find  it  gradually 
brought  to  an  end  by  compromises  made  in  the  interest 
and  under  the  influence  of  the  faith  held  in  common  by 
the  opposing  parties.  The  triumph  of  the  great  Pauline 


4O  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

doctrine  of  the  universal  mission  of  Christianity  in  free- 
dom from  the  galling  yoke  of  Jewish  legalism  over  the 
narrow  opinions  and  tenacious  prejudices  of  the  original 
apostles  is  a  fact  of  history.  But  this  view  did  not  pre- 
vail at  once  by  the  exclusion  of  all  that  opposed  it  ;  and 
accordingly  there  stand  side  by  side  in  the  canon  Gospels, 
Epistles,  and  other  writings  in  which  its  doctrines,  those 
which  opposed  it,  and  those  of  a  mediating  tendency  are 
represented.  But  this  conflict,  carried  over  as  it  was  into 
the  post-apostolic  age,  could  not  but  interfere  with  an 
early  settlement  of  the  canon.  The  situation  in  question 
is  well  stated  by  Reuss  :  "  The  parties,  which  had  required 
some  time  to  come  to  a  full  consciousness  of  the  princi- 
ples which  separated  them,  were  in  the  post-apostolic  age 
in  some  respects  still  less  disposed  to  be  friendly  than 
when  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  now  no  longer 
living,  had  endeavored  in  vain  to  twine  the  bonds  of  one 
faith  about  the  scattered  members  of  the  Church.  Be- 
sides, the  writings  of  these  men  were  in  many  ways  in- 
volved with  the  polemics  of  the  day,  so  that  they  were  to 
the  one  party  a  stumbling-block  and  to  the  other  a  refresh- 
ment of  its  convictions  ;  and  a  longtime  must  have  passed 
before  those  inclined  to  peace  found  a  formula  by  which, 
upon  middle  ground  and  by  means  of  mutual  concessions, 
an  actually  common,  catholic  church  could  be  formed, 
abandoning  the  extreme  views  on  both  sides,  and  gather- 
ing up  for  the  common  advantage  whatever  each  party 
had  inherited  of  apostolic  literary  treasure."  *  Another 
writer  says  to  the  same  effect,  that  the  circulation  of  some 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  for  a  while  depended 
more  or  less  on  their  supposed  connection  with  specific 
forms  of  Christianity,  and  the  range  of  other  books  was 
*  Gesch.  d.  heil.  Schrift.  N.  T.  8  288. 


THE   CANON.  41 

limited  either  by  their  original  destination  or  by  the  na- 
ture of  their  contents.  * 

The  important  witnesses  for  this  period  are  Clement  of 
Rome,  Barnabas,  and  Hermas.  Their  testimony  is  to  be 
considered  with  regard  to  the  current  opinions  in  their 
time  respecting  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Chris- 
tian literature  then  in  use,  with  particular  reference  to 
accounts  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus,  or  so-called 
Gospels.  In  order  to  ascertain  what  were  the  earliest 
tendencies  towards  the  formation  of  the  canon,  they  must 
be  questioned  as  to  the  nature  of  the  writings  in  their 
hands  and  as  to  their  manner  of  using  them  for  quotation 
or  illustration. 

a.  Clement  of  Rome. — Two  Epistles  attributed  to  Clement 
of  Rome  are  appended  to  one  of  the  oldest  manuscripts 
of  the  Bible,  Codex  Alexandrinus.  They  are  addressed  to 
the  Corinthians.  The  text  is  not  entire,  and  some  passages 
are  supposed  to  be  interpolations.  The  second  of  these  is 
spurious,  but  the  first  is  probably  genuine,  notwithstand- 
ing Schwegler's  objections,  f  and  was  written  at  about  the 
close  of  the  first  or  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 
Clement  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  to  have 
held  a  prominent  place  in  the  Roman  Church,  perhaps 
that  of  an  overseer,  or  Bishop,  and  to  have  had  inter- 
course with  some  of  the  apostles.:):  An  early  tradition 
ascribed  to  him  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Acts.  He  has  been  thought  also  to 
have  been  a  mediator  between  the  contending  Pauline 
and  Petrine  parties  in  the  early  Church,  and  this  theory 

*  Westcott,  A  General  Review  of  the  History  of  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  6th  ed.,  Cambridge  and  London,  1889. 
f  Nachapol.  Zeitalter,  1846,  ii.  p.  125  f. 
\  Adv.  Haeies.   iii.  3,  6  uccl 


42  GO  SPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

finds  some  confirmation  in  his  Epistle,  the  peculiarities  of 
the  language  showing,  as  some  maintain,  the  influence  of 
both  Peter  and  Paul,  *  and  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  and  of  righteousness  through  works  finding  ex- 
pression. The  Epistle  cannot  be  accorded  a  high  rank 
as  a  literary  production,  and  as  an  exposition  of  Chris- 
tianity it  is  not  worthy  of  mention  beside  the  great  let- 
ters of  Paul.  It  betrays  a  mediocre  personality  without 
intellectual  grasp  and  destitute  of  profound  feeling.  It 
abounds  in  homilies  which  are  commonplace  and  flat,  and 
there  appears  to  be  no  reason  for  its  survival  apart  from 
its  antiquity  and  the  position  held  by  its  author. 

The  words  of  Clement  respecting  the  commission  of 
the  apostles  and  spiritual  gifts  in  general  are  significant 
both  for  what  they  say  and  for  what  they  leave  unsaid. 
"The  apostles  have  brought  us  the  good  tidings/'  he 
writes,  "by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  Jesus  Christ,  by  God. 
Christ  was  sent  forth  by  God,  the  apostles,  by  Christ; 
and  both  [these  things]  were  done  in  an  orderly  way  by 
the  will  of  God."f  Again,  "  God  having  chosen  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  us  through  him  to  a  peculiar  people," 
etc.  And,  "  Have  we  not  one  God  and  one  Christ  and 
one  Spirit  of  grace  poured  out  upon  us  "  ;  "a  full  pouring 
out  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  made  upon  us  all4  There  is 
here  no  intimation  of  the  doctrine  of  especial  apostolic 
inspiration,  but  rather  the  contrary  is  implied.  The 
apostles  were  sent  forth  by  divine  ordination  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  and  the  only  distinction  which  they  enjoyed 
appears  to  be  that  they  were  near  to  Christ  and  directly 
commissioned  by  him.  One  Spirit  of  grace  was,  however, 

*  Westcott,  Canon,  p.  24. 
\  i  Ep.  ad  Cor.  c.  42. 
\Ib.  c.  58,  46,  2. 


THE   CANON.  43 

poured  out  upon  the  believers  in  general,  who  must  be 
regarded  as  designated  by  "  us,"  *  in  accordance  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  general  inspiration  of  Christians  which  we 
have  seen  to  have  been  that  of  the  apostolic  age.f 

Of  quotations  from  the  Gospels  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  words  there  are  no  examples  found  in  Clement.  In 
chapter  13,  after  making  a  quotation  from  Jeremiah  ix. 
23,  24,  which  he  introduces  with  the  words,  "  let  us  do 
as  it  is  written,  for  the  Holy  Spirit  says,"  he  proceeds: 
"  Especially  remembering  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
which  he  spake  teaching  clemency  and  long-suffering, 
'pity,  that  you  may  receive  pity;  forgive,  that  you  may 
be  forgiven  ;  according  as  you  do  it  shall  be  done  to  you  ; 
as  you  give  so  shall  it  be  given  to  you  ;  as  you  judge,  so 
shall  you  be  judged  ;  as  you  are  merciful,  so  shall  you 
obtain  mercy  ;  with  what  measure  you  mete,  so  shall  it 
be  measured  to  you.'  "  Again,  in  chapter  46,  after  quot- 
ing with  the  formula,  "  for  it  is  written  "  (ysypaitrai  yap) 
some  words  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  he 
proceeds  :  "  Remember  the  words  of  Jesus  our  Lord, 
'  woe  to  that  man  ;  it  were  well  (K(X\OV)  if  he  had  not 
been  born,  than  that  he  offend  one  of  my  elect  ;  it  were 
better  for  him  that  a  millstone  be  put  about  him  and  he 
be  thrown  into  the  sea  than  that  he  offend  one  of  my 
little  ones.'  "  It  is  to  be  noted  in  the  first  place  that  the 
words  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  these  passages  are  not  quoted 
with  the  formula,  "  it  is  written,"  or,  "  the  Scripture  says," 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  time  in  taking  words  from 
the  Old  Testament  ;  in  the  second  place,  that  they  are 
not  correctly  quoted  at  all,  but  appear  to  be  either  feebly 
remembered  fragments  of  oral  tradition  or  citations  from 


*Kod  iv  itvevna  rift  xdpiroS  TO  kn^EV^iv  etp 

fCredner,  Beitrage  zur  Einleit.  in  die  heil.  Schr.  1832,  i.  p.  14. 


44  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

written  collections  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  now  unknown ; 
and  finally,  that  they  are  not  attributed  to  any  Gospel 
either  by  particular  name  or  general  reference,  as  if  the 
writer  were  acquainted  with  or  at  least  in  the  habit  of 
using  such  records.  It  cannot,  certainly,  be  fairly  urged 
that  the  words  are  introduced  "  with  a  remark  implying 
a  well-known  record  *  *  *  and  in  a  way  suggesting 
careful  and  precise  quotation  of  the  very  words."  Such 
striking  inaccuracies  in  quoting  could  hardly  be  committed 
by  a  writer  at  all  familiar  with  our  canonical  records,  and 
Weiss'  remark  that  the  citation  in  chapter  46,  8  may  be 
"  fully  explained "  by  a  combination  of  Matt.  xxv.  24 
with  xviii.  6  *  cannot  be  substantiated  if  by  "  combination  " 
be  meant  a  uniting  of  passages  from  a  written  page. 
Some  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  which  Clement  quotes 
are  not  found  in  the  Gospels,  and  others  are  apparently 
shattered  echoes  of  actual  words  of  Jesus.  No  one  well 
acquainted  with  the  Greek  Gospels  would  be  likely  to 
employ  in  making  quotations  from  them  words  totally 
unlike  those  used  in  the  records.f  The  positive  affirma- 
tion in  chapter  44  that  "  our  apostles  knew  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  there  would  be  contention  con- 
cerning the  episcopacy  "  could  only  be  made  by  one  who 
rather  held  in  his  mind  some  floating  traditions  of  words 
of  Jesus  than  made  careful  reference  to  the  records  after- 
wards accepted  as  Gospels.  Besides,  no  one  who  could 
so  carelessly  make  use  of  the  reputed  sayings  of  Jesus 
can  fairly  be  supposed  to  have  attached  especial  sacred- 
ness  or  even  importance  to  written  accounts  of  them, 
even  if  he  was  acquainted  with  such  documents. 

*  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  von  B.  Weiss,  1886,  p.  29. 

f  As  Ttepirebr/rai,  "put  about,"  for  TtEpixeiTai  Tcspi  rbv  r/jap^/lo*1 
avrov,  "be  hung  about  his  neck."  Many  similar  examples  might  be 
quoted. 


THE   CANON.  45 

b.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas. — The  early  date  of  this 
Epistle  cannot  be  successfully  contested,  although  there 
are  good  reasons  why  it  should  not  be  ascribed  to  the 
"  apostle  "  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul.*  The 
first  quotation  of  it  under  the  name  of  Barnabas  is 
found  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  who  cites  it  frequently. 
Origen  calls  it  a  Catholic  Epistle,  and  treats  it  with  great 
consideration,  "  almost  according  it  canonical  authority." 
Eusebius  mentions  it  as  well  known  and  commonly  circu- 
lated (q)£ponevrf),  though  he  reckons  it  among  the  anti- 
legomena,  or  disputed  books. f  Jerome,  while  regarding 
it  as  genuine,  classes  it  among  the  apocryphal  writings, 
with  which  it  appears  to  have  been  publicly  read  in  his 
time.  In  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  of  the  Greek  Bible  it 
stands  next  after  the  book  of  Revelation.  The  Epistle  is 
without  address,  and  there  exist  no  data  for  determining 
its  original  destination.  Its  date  is  also  indeterminate, 
but  a  reference  in  it  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  places  its  composition  beyond  question  later 
than  the  year  70  of  our  era,  while  Norton's  reasons  for 
dating  it  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century  are 
not  at  all  conclusive.  Its  more  probable  date  is  between 
100  and  no.J 

The  doctrinal  portion  of  the  Epistle,  which  occupies 
the  first  seventeen  chapters,  has  for  its  object  to  set  forth 
the  decadence  of  the  Law  and  to  separate  Christianity 
and  its  believers  from  the  Old-Testament  economy  and 
its  rites  and  duties.  The  point  of  view  is,  accordingly, 

*  Acts  iv.  26  ;  xii.  25  ;  xiii.  i. 

f  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  25  ;  vi.  14. 

\  Westcott,  Canon,  p.  42.  Lipsius,  Barnabasbrief  in  Schenkel's  Bibel- 
Lexicon,  i.  p.  363  f.  Hilgenfeld  dates  the  Epistle  at  about  97,  Die  apos- 
tolischen  Vater,  1853,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  1874. 


46  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Pauline ;  but  the  manner  in  which  the  writer  accom- 
plishes his  purpose  shows  his  immense  inferiority  to  the 
great  apostle.  In  no  way  does  a  mediocre  intellect  so 
fully  reveal  itself  as  in  the  handling  of  a  large  theme 
He  adopts,  indeed,  the  Pauline  typological  theory  of 
interpretation  in  dealing  with  the  Old  Testament, — a 
theory  which  dominated  the  apostolic  and  post-apos- 
tolic ages, — but  in  applying  it  he  descends  to  puerilities 
and  absurdities  which  are  nothing  short  of  disgusting. 
It  is,  indeed,  difficult  for  one  who  takes  the  trouble  to 
read  the  Epistle  not  to  sympathize  with  Norton's  con- 
temptuous judgment  that  "  it  might  have  been  written 
as  a  task  by  a  dull  pupil  in  a  rhetorician's  school."  The 
entire  Mosaic  economy  in  all  its  details  becomes  in  his 
hands  a  series  of  prophetic  figures  which  are  gathered  up 
hap-hazard  and  explained  with  a  surprising  subtlety,  in- 
deed, but  without  a  dominating  principle,  in  bad  taste 
and  with  great  paucity  of  ideas.*  In  his  typologizing 
interpretation  he  employs  some  of  the  passages  from  the 
Old  Testament  which  are  treated  in  a  similar  way  by 
various  writers  of  the  apostolic  age,  but  in  his  daring  and 
invention  in  applying  this  method  he  has  furnished  its 
most  thorough  refutation. 

The  author's  use  of  New-Testament  writings  is  con- 
fined within  very  narrow  limits.  He  was  acquainted 
with  some  of  Paul's  Epistles,  and  certainly  used  Romans, 
possibly  also  Galatians.  If  he  had  any  knowledge  of  any 
one  of  our  four  Gospels  he  certainly  does  not  betray  it  by 
mention  or  unquestionable  citation.  He  makes  a  few 
quotations  of  sayings  of  Jesus  which  have  some  similarity 
to  passages  in  the  first  Gospel,  and  Weiss  is  probably 
right  in  saying  that  we  do  not  need  to  go  beyond  this 

*  Reuss,  La  Theologie  Chretienne  au  Siecle  Apostolique,  1864,  Livre  VI. 


THE    CANON.  47 

record  for  their  explanation.  Their  source  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  determined  with  certainty,  and  speculation  about 
it  is  futile,  while  dogmatic  affirmation,  like  that  of  Tischen- 
dorf,  is  entirely  unwarrantable.  The  writer  certainly  did 
not  confine  himself  to  sources  known  to  us  for  the  words  of 
Jesus,  for  he  quotes  as  one  of  his  sayings,  "  Let  us  resist  all 
iniquity,  and  hold  it  in  odium."  *  Great  stress  has  been 
laid,  particularly  by  Tischendorf,  upon  the  fact  that  the 
words  "  as  it  is  written,"  which  in  the  Latin  version  of  the 
Epistle  were  regarded  by  some  as  a  gloss,  f  by  some  as  an 
addition  of  the  Latin  translator,;]:  and  by  others  as  intro- 
ducing a  quotation  substantially  taken  from  some  prophet- 
ical writing,§  have  been  found  in  the  Greek  text  in  the 
CodexSinaiticus.|l  They  introduce  the  quotation  in  chap- 
ter 4,  "  Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen,"  and  since  this 
Sinaitic  discovery  they  have  been  regarded  by  some  as 
proving  that  Matt.  xxii.  14  is  here  cited  as  canonical 
Scripture  with  the  formula  employed  in  quoting  from  the 
Old  Testament.  But  apart  from  the  consideration  that 
a  single  instance  of  the  use  of  this  formula  would  prove 
nothing  in  view  of  the  writer's  manner  of  dealing  with 
the  evangelic  material,  there  appears  to  be  no  good  reason 
why  the  words  might  not  be  a  gloss  in  a  Greek  manuscript 
of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  not  improbable,  as  even  West- 
cott  admits,  that  the  proverbial  phrase  introduced  by  the 
formula  of  Scripture-quotation  may  through  a  failure.of 
memory  have  been  referred  by  the  writer  to  some  scrip- 
ture of  the  Old  Testament.  Several  errors  of  this  kind 
are  found  in  the  Gospels,  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel 

*  "  Sicut  dicit  filius  Dei,"  etc.,  c.  iv. 

f  Dressel,  Pat.  apostol.  Opera,  "  glossam  olent." 

\  Credner,  Beitrage,  i.  28. 

§  Orelli,  Selecta  Patrum,  p.  5. 


48  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

confounding  Zechariah  with  Jeremiah  and  Mark  referring 
to  Isaiah  a  passage  from  Malachi."*  A  similar  confusion 
occurs  several  times  in  Justin  Martyr,  f  The  preponder- 
ance of  historical  evidence  from  this  period  is  opposed  to 
the  probability  of  the  quotation  of  a  passage  from  one  of 
the  Gospels  as  Scripture  by  any  writer  in  it.  Hardly  does 
Justin,  who  wrote  from  thirty  to  forty  years  later,  show 
such  consideration  for  any  of  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament.  In  chapter  5  of  this  Epistle  there  is  a  strange 
application,  or  interpretation,  of  the  words  of  Jesus  re- 
corded in  Matt.  ix.  13,  "I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous, 
but  sinners  to  repentance,"  by  which  they  are  supposed 
to  find  their  explanation  in  his  choosing  the  greatest  sin- 
ners as  his  apostles !  The  absence  of  any  reference  to  a 
written  Gospel  does  not,  indeed,  exclude  the  hypothesis 
that  this  passage  was  quoted  from  our  first  Gospel,  but 
so  gross  a  misapplication  of  it  indicates  that  it  was  only 
known  to  the  writer  out  of  its  proper  connection  and  as  a 
fragment  of  the  popular  tradition. 

c.  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas. — A  certain  Hernias  is  men- 
tioned by  Paul  in  Rom.  xvi.  14,  and  to  this  man  an 
ancient  tradition  ascribed  The  Shepherd.  There  are, 
however,  good  reasons  for  rejecting  this  tradition  and  for 
holding  that  the  writing  was  composed  in  the  first  quar- 
ter of  the  second  century.  It  is  clearly  indicated  in  the 
book  not  only  that  none  of  the  apostles  were  living  when 
it  was  written,  but  that  many  of  the  heads  of  the  Church 
had  departed.  Christianity  is  represented  as  already 
widely  proclaimed  and  as  having  suffered  manifold  and 
bloody  persecutions.  The  internal  evidences  so  decidedly 
indicate  a  date  as  late  as  the  year  117  that  they  outweigh 

*  Matt,  xxvii.  9  ;  Mark  i.  I. 

f  Dial.  c.  14,  Apol.  i.  53.     Scholten,  Die  altesten  Zeugnisse,  p.  n. 


THE   CANON.  49 

the  testimony  of  some  eminent  fathers  who  were  inclined 
to  regard  it  with  great  consideration  as  the  work  of  Her- 
mas.  The  writer  himself  evidently  desired  to  have  the 
book  pass  for  such,  since  he  mentions  Clement  of  Rome 
as  a  contemporary.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  high 
favor  in  which  it  was  held  by  many  in  ancient  times. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  often  quoted  it  with  great  respect, 
and  even  Origen  regarded  it  as  the  work  of  the  Hermas 
mentioned  by  Paul,  thought  it  a  very  useful  writing,  and, 
indeed,  divinely  inspired,  though  his  citations  from  it 
were  sometimes  made  with  reserve  and  qualifications. 
Tertullian  implies  that  it  had  been  regarded  by  some 
as  having  a  claim  to  canonical  authority,  while  after  he 
became  a  Montanist  he  reprobated  its  teachings,  and 
declared  that  it  was  rejected  by  the  catholic  Christians 
as  "  apocryphal  and  false."  Eusebius  speaks  of  it  as 
reputed  to  be  the  work  of  Hermas,  but  reckons  it  among 
the  "  not  genuine  "  scriptures,  although  admitting  that  it 
was  thought  by  some  to  be  "  very  necessary,"  and  was  in 
his  day  read  in  the  churches.  The  date  assigned  to  it  in 
the  canon  of  Muratori,  that  is,  about  142,  is  hardly  con- 
sistent with  the  high  estimation  in*  which  it  was  held  by 
the  fathers. 

The  work,  which  consists  of  visions,  commandments, 
and  similitudes,  is  destitute  of  literary  interest,  and  has 
been  characterized  by  one  who  studied  it  much,  and  wrote 
a  treatise  on  it,  as  "  one  of  the  most  spiritless  books  that 
the  ancient  Church  has  handed  down  to  us."  *  He  regards 
it  as  of  importance,  so  far  as  it  shows  the  judgment  and 
discrimination  of  those  fathers  of  the  Church  who  could 
hold  in  veneration  a  writing  to  which  we  find  ourselves 
almost  constrained  to  refuse  respect.  But  the  present 

*  Jachmann,  Hirte  des  Hermas,  p.  43. 
4 


50  GOSPEL-  CRI TJCISM. 

concern  is  not  so  much  with  the  literary  character  of  the 
work,  its  Jewish-Christian  tendency,  its  romance,  and  its 
defence  of  asceticism,  as  with  its  bearing  on  the  history  of 
the  canon  through  its  relation  to  the  Gospels.  With  all  its 
visions  and  apocalyptics,  it  has  almost  nothing  to  do  with 
the  facts  of  Christianity.  Christ  is  mentioned  but  once, 
and  his  death  and  resurrection  not  at  all.  The  great 
Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  through  faith  receives  no 
notice,  and  Paul's  letters  are  not  quoted.  There  are  no 
definite  quotations  from  the  Gospels,  but  certain  frequent 
coincidences  of  language  show  the  writer's  familiarity  with 
the  Gospel-tradition  at  least.  A  confounding  of  two  say- 
ings of  Jesus  appears  to  be  indicated  in  the  remark  that 
they  who  remain  like  little  children  will  be  the  first  to 
see  God.*  Certain  admonitions  against  adultery  may  be 
reminiscences  of  Matt.  v.  28.  The  divorce  of  a  wife  is 
allowed,  and  re-marriage  forbidden  as  an  act  of  adultery, 
in  accordance  with  Matt.  v.  22.f  The  injunction  is  laid 
down  to  fear  the  Lord  (rather  than  Satan),  because  He  is 
able  to  save  and  to  destroy — probably  a  reminiscence  of 
Matt.  x.  284  An  allusion  to  Matt,  xviii.  3,  is  made  in 
the  narrative  and  discourse  on  strife  for  precedence,  and 
to  Matt,  xviii.  10,  in  the  declaration  that  all  little  children 
are  honored  of  God  and  regarded  as  first. §  Of  the  ac- 
count of  the  rich  young  man  there  appears  to  be  a 
reminiscence  in  the  remark  that  the  rich  will  with  diffi- 
culty enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Westcott,  however, 
is  evidently  hasty  in  drawing  the  conclusion  that  the 
writer  of  Hermas  was  probably  familiar  with  our  Gospels, 
and  even  made  allusions  to  the  fourth. ||  Weiss  more 
cautiously  and  correctly  says  that  the  work  contains 

*Sim.  ix.  29.  f  Mand.  iv.  I.  \  Mand.  xii.  6. 

§  Sim.  ix.  29.  I  Canon,  pp.  201,  203. 


THE    CANON.  51 

no  certain  trace  of  them,  and  finds  only  an  accord  with 
Mark  x.  24  in  Sim.  ix.  20.* 

3. — THE    EPISTLES    OF    POLYCARP    AND    IGNATIUS. 

The  authorship  of  an  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  ascribed 
to  Polycarp  by  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius,f  has  been  much 
discussed  by  the  learned,  and  many  still  contend  that  it 
is  spurious.  But  since  Polycarp  died  in  167,  and  the 
letter  is  supposed  by  those  who  contest  its  genuineness  to 
have  been  written  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
there  appears  to  be  no  external  evidence  against  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  tradition  which  ascribes  it  to  him.  The 
objection  of  Schwegler that  "so  extremely  meagre,  weak, 
and  disconnected  a  compilation  of  passages  from  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments ;  a  trivial  combination  of  common- 
places, liturgical  formulae,  and  moral  admonitions  ;  a  letter 
without  occasion  and  aim,  without  individuality  and  salient 
character,  without  peculiarity  in  language  and  ideas,  is 
wholly  unworthy  of  the  great  Asiatic  prince  of  the 
Church,"  \  is  founded  upon  a  presumption  regarding  the 
Bishop  of  Smyrna,  which  this  critic  does  not  take 
the  trouble  to  substantiate.  Whether  the  entire  Epistle 
should  be  pronounced  spurious,  on  account  of  the  refer- 
ence which  it  contains  to  the  letters  of  Ignatius,  or 
whether  this  passage  and  some  others  should  be  regarded 
as  interpolations,  and  the  remainder  as  a  genuine  writ- 
ing of  Polycarp, §  may  be  here  left  undecided.  The 
internal  evidences,  which  presuppose  the  existence  of 
doctrines  that  did  not  appear  so  early  as  the  date  as- 

*  Einleit.    p.  29. 

f  Adv.  Haeres.  in.  3  ;  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  36. 

\  Nachapost.  Zeitalt.  ii.  p.  154. 

§  According  to  Volkmar,  Ursprung  unserer  Evangelien,  1865. 


52  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

signed  to  it  by  some  scholars,  furnish  a  strong  probability 
that  it  was  composed  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.*  The  dogmatic  point  of  view  of  the  author 
is  Pauline,  with  a  mediating  tendency  in  respect  to  the 
opposing  parties.  Rich  in  Pauline  citations,  it  is,  accord- 
ing to  Schwegler,  poor  in  Pauline  ideas,  and  is  confined 
almost  exclusively  to  the  domain  of  a  dry  moralizing. 
Among  its  moral  admonitions  and  warnings  there  is  a  fre- 
quent and  quite  wearisome  return  to  the  perils  of  riches 
and  the  blessings  of  poverty.  An  Ebionite  tendency  has, 
accordingly,  been  by  some  critics  attributed  to  the  Epistle. 
An  inculcation  of  orthodox  doctrine  and  a  vigorous  po- 
lemic against  heresies  are  also  prominent  characteristics. 
The  greatest  importance  is  attached  to  the  hierarchical 
organization  of  the  Church  as  a  means  of  maintaining  the 
desired  dogmatic  unity,  and  believers  are  admonished 
to  obey  the  presbyters  and  deacons  as  God  and  Christ. f 

There  is  no  reference  by  the  writer  to  any  one  of  our 
Gospels  by  name.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that 
he  was  unacquainted  with  the  synoptical  records  at  least, 
but  he  shows  them  no  marked  consideration,  and  deals 
very  freely,  after  the  manner  of  Clement  of  Rome,  with 
the  evangelical  material.  Sayings  attributed  to  Jesus  are 
sometimes  thrown  together  regardless  of  connection  and 
with  entire  indifference  as  to  their  source,  as  follows: 
"  Remembering  what  the  Lord  said,  '  judge  not,  that  ye 
be  not  judged  ;  forgive,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  you  ;  be 
merciful,  that  ye  may  obtain  mercy  ;  with  what  measure 
ye  mete  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  ;  and,  blessed  are  the 
poor  and  those  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  for 

*  Lightfoot   argues   against    this   in   Essays   on    Supernatural    Religion, 
London,  1889. 
f  o5s  Beep  nal 


THE   CANON.  53 

theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  "  *  Of  these  passages 
some  are  found  in  the  Gospels,  and  others  appear  to  be 
reminiscences  of  reported  words  of  Jesus.  The  use  in 
some  cases  of  different  Greek  words  from  those  in  which 
the  same  or  similar  sayings  of  Jesus  are  recorded  in  the 
Gospels  indicates  either  want  of  familiarity  with  a  written 
record,  or  free  quotation  from  memory,  or,  again,  depend- 
ence on  oral  tradition. f  One  exact  verbatim  quotation 
occurs  in  the  words,  "  As  the  Lord  said,  '  the  spirit, 
indeed,  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak.'  "  ^  Some  coinci- 
dences of  language  occur,  as,  "  According  to  the  truth  of 
the  Lord  who  became  a  minister  of  all"§;  and,  "If  we 
desire  the  Lord  to  forgive  us,  we  ought  also  to  forgive."  || 
None  of  the  quotations  in  this  Epistle  are  traceable  to 
apocryphal  writings,  but  one  is  hardly  warranted  on  this 
account  in  excluding,  with  Westcott,  the  author's  possible 
use  of  Gospel-records  somewhat  different  from  ours.  In 
the  absence  of  the  slightest  intimation  in  the  Epistle  that 
he  regarded  any  Christian  writings  as  sacred  or  as  exclu- 
sive sources  of  information,  there  is  no  ground  for  affirm- 
ing that  he  limited  himself  in  making  quotations  to 
certain  records,  or  to  any  records  whatever,  and  did  not 
draw  from  the  abundant  oral  and  written  evangelic 
material  of  his  time. 

The  Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
are  involved  in  so  much  uncertainty  as  to  their  authorship 
and  date,  and  have  given  rise  to  so  much  discussion, 
which  has  brought  out  the  greatest  variety  of  opinion 
among  the  learned,  that  a  modest  reserve  is  the  only 

*  Chap.  ii. 

f  The  parallels  are  supposed  to  be  Matt.  vii.  I,  vi.  14,  v.  7  ;  Luke  vi.  38 
(Matt.  vii.  2) ;  Luke  vi.  20  ;  Matt.  v.  10. 

\  Chap.  vii.  §  Chap.  v.  fl  Chap.  vi. 


54  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

becoming  attitude  with  regard  to  them,  even  in  one  who 
has  given  the  most  careful  attention  to  the  subject. 
There  are  in  all  fifteen  Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  of 
which  eight  are  generally  admitted  to  be  spurious.  The 
seven  over  which  the  contest  as  to  their  genuineness  has 
been  waged  are  addressed  to  the  Magnesians,  the  Tral- 
lians,  the  Philadelphians,  the  Smyrneans,  the  Ephesians, 
the  Romans,  and  Polycarp.  These  exist  in  a  twofold 
Greek  recension,  a  longer  and  a  shorter.  The  longer 
recension  is  generally  rejected  as  a  fabrication  made  at  a 
comparatively  late  date,  perhaps  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  century,*  so  that  there  remains  to  be  considered 
only  the  shorter  form.  This  is  called  the  Vossian  recen- 
sion, the  Greek  text  having  been  discovered  by  Isaac 
Voss  in  the  seventeenth  century.  The  Ignatian  problem 
was  complicated  when  in  1845  three  of  the  Epistles  were 
discovered  in  a  Syriac  version  and  published  by  Cureton. 
These  are  those  to  the  Ephesians,  the  Romans,  and  Poly- 
carp,  and  are  designated  as  the  Cureton  Epistles.  The 
questions  in  discussion  now  are  whether  the  Vossian 
Epistles  were  expanded  by  interpolations  from  the  Cure- 
tonian,  or  the  latter  reduced  from  the  former  by  excision 
and  abridgment,  and  finally  whether  that  one  of  the 
recensions  which  may  be  decided  to  be  original  is  genuine 
or  not.  The  important  question  then,  is,  whether  the 
Ignatian  Epistles  were  written  by  the  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
as  they  purport  to  have  been  written,  while  he  was  on 
the  way  to  Rome,  under  a  guard  of  Roman  soldiers,  to 
suffer  martyrdom,  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century 
(about  115),  or  were  forged  in  his  name  about  forty  years 
later. 

The  external  testimony  for  these   Epistles  is  not  very 

*  Lightfoot. 


THE   CANON.  55 

favorable  to  their  genuineness.  Irenaeus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  and  Tertullian,  are  silent  regarding  them. 
With  their  polemics  against  heresies,  they  could  hardly 
have  escaped  mention  by  Irenaeus,  along  with  that  of 
Clement  of  Rome  and  that  of  Polycarp  in  this  connec- 
tion, had  he  known  of  them,  or  knowing  of  them,  had 
believed  them  to  be  genuine.*  Origen,  indeed,  is  sup- 
posed by  some  to  have  twice  quoted  them.  But  one  of 
the  quotations  adduced  is  found  in  a  work  of  which  only 
the  Latin  translation  by  Rufinus  exists,  in  which  little 
confidence  can  be  placed  on  account  of  the  changes  and 
interpolations  which  he  introduced  ;  and  the  other  is  in  a 
work  of  doubtful  genuineness.  Eusebius  is  the  first 
writer  who  makes  express  mention  of  them,  and  he 
introduces  his  narrative  of  the  journey  to  Rome,  the  halt 
at  Smyrna,  and  the  writing  of  the  several  Epistles  in 
their  order  with  the  words, "  It  is  reported,"  or  "  tradition 

says."t 

External  improbabilities  against  such  a  correspondence 
under  the  existing  circumstances  are  urged  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles.  If,  however, 
it  be  granted  that  a  prisoner  under  the  escort  of  a  band  of 
soldiers  to  the  place  of  execution  would  be  permitted  to 
receive  delegations  from  sympathizers  along  the  way,  and 
have  opportunity  to  write  long  letters  to  the  churches 
which  they  represented,  or  to  others,  the  character  of  the 

*  The  quotation  of  a  passage  by  Irenceus  from  the  Ignatian  letter  to  the 
Romans,  without  other  mention  of  its  authorship  than  that  it  was  by  a 
member  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  is  futile  as  evidence  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  Epistles,  though  urged  by  Lightfoot.  At  most  it  shows  their 
existence  in  the  last  decade  of  the  second  century. 

f  Lightfoot  does  not  appear  to  attach  great  importance  to  the  testimony 
of  Eusebius,  and  passes  lightly  over  it,  appearing  to  rest  the  case,  so  far  as 
external  evidence  goes,  mainly  on  Origen  and  Irenseus.  Essays,  etc.,  p.  82. 


56  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

reputed  letters  may  well  be  appealed  to  in  order  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  no  they  are  such  as  the  supposed  author 
would  naturally  write  in  his  situation.  Neander,  who 
does  not  admit  that  the  letters  are  altogether  spurious, 
but  speaks  of  them  as  much  interpolated,  goes  so  far  as 
to  say  that,  "  as  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius 
is  very  suspicious,  so  the  Epistles,  which  throughout  as- 
sume the  truth  of  this  doubtful  legend,  do  not  bear  the 
stamp  of  a  definite  peculiarity  and  of  a  man  of  this  time — 
a  man  who  announces  his  last  words  to  the  churches  " ; 
and  adds  that  a  hierarchical  intention  is  not  to  be  denied. 
Schwegler  is  moved  to  say  that,  under  the  circumstances 
supposed  by  the  theory  of  their  genuineness  the  contents 
of  the  letters  are  "  an  absolute  psychological  improba- 
bility." *  Norton,  who  disputes  their  genuineness  on 
other  grounds  also,  is  very  outspoken  on  this  point. 
"  There  is,"  he  says,  "  no  natural  expression  of  feeling. 
The  sentiments  ascribed  to  Ignatius  present  a  rude  cari- 
cature of  a  very  weak,  half-crazy,  vainglorious  bigot." 
Then  referring  to  the  conception  on  which  the  Epistles 
are  founded,  that  of  an  aged  bishop  taken  to  execution, 
he  says :  "  One  could  hardly  imagine  that  the  outline 
could  be  filled  up,  as  it  is,  by  the  forger  of  these  Epistles, 
so  that  not  a  feeling  of  interest  or  respect  should  be  ex- 
cited for  the  sufferer.  No  writer  of  fustian  tragedy  ever 
more  grossly  misrepresented  human  nature,  or  put  more 
extravagant  rant  into  the  mouth  of  his  principal  per- 
sonage." f 

Apart  from  the  consideration  that  the  letters  abound 
in  references  to  heretical  opinions  which  are  supposed 
not  to  have  been  promulgated  until  a  time  considerably 
later  than  that  of  Ignatius,  the  hierarchical  purpose  men- 

*  Nachap.  Zeitalter,  ii.    p.  160.     Baur,   Urspr.  des  Episcopats,  p.  149  f. 
\  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.     Additional  Note,  p.  clxvi. 


THE   CANON.  57 

tioned  by  Neander  is  very  plainly  marked  in  them.  They 
appear  to  favor  the  tendency  to  a  union  of  the  Pauline  and 
Petrine  parties,  and  to  the  formation  of  a  catholic  church. 
u  Do  ye  all  follow  your  Bishop  as  Jesus  Christ  did  the 
Father,  and  the  Presbytery  as  the  apostles,  and  reverence 
the  deacons  as  the  command  of  God,"  is  the  extravagant 
language  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Smyrneans.  Now  the 
ecclesiastical  situation  and  tendency  which  find  their 
"  programme  "  in  these  Epistles  did  not  exist  before  the 
latter  half  of  the  second  century.  Altogether  the  pre- 
ponderance of  evidence  appears  to  place  their  composi- 
tion in  this  period,  rather  than  so  late  as  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century,  as  Norton  will  have  it.* 

The  writer  of  these  Epistles  appears  to  presuppose  a 
written  Gospel,  or  Gospels,  to  which,  however,  he  is  in- 
different from  his  spiritualizing  point  of  view.  He  hears 
some  say,  he  writes,  that  "  unless  they  find  the  Gospel 
in  the  archives,  or  ancient  documents,  f  they  will  not  be- 
lieve ; "  but  to  him  the  archives  (ap^ia)  are  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  cross  is  the  authentic  apx^iov.  In  accordance 
with  this  point  of  view  he  makes  no  mention  of  Gospels 
by  name,  although  he  appears  to  have  some  knowledge  of 
the  evangelic  history.  He  speaks,  indeed,  of  the  Gospel 
in  the  abstract  (TO  fvayyeXiov),  of  the  prophets  as  having 
preannounced  Christ,  and  of  the  apostles  as  the  presbytery 
of  the  Church.  J  But  there  is  no  intimation  here  or  else- 

*  Hilgenfeld,  "  Hardly  before  166,"  Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T.  p.  72  ;  Volk- 
mar,  "About  170,"  Urspr.  uns.  Evang.  p.  163;  Scholten,  "Perhaps  not 
before  170,"  Aelteste  Zeug.  p.  52. 

f  Ad  Philad.  viii.  £v  TOI$  apxeioiS  (apxaiotS).  The  meaning  is  doubt- 
ful. Credner  refers  the  words  to  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is 
followed  by  Reuss  and  Holtzmann. 

\  Ad   Philad.  v.      Ttpo6(pvyMV   rep  Evayy^icp   ao$   dapni 
•nat  rot's  a.Tto^ToXoi's  coS  irpetffivreptG) 


UNIVERSITY 


58  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

where  in  his  writings  of  a  conception  of  a  sacred  canon  of 
Gospels  and  Epistles.  In  fact  there  are  traces  of  almost 
as  frequent  a  use  of  Clement  of  Rome  and  Hermas  in 
his  Epistles  as  of  the  firrt  Gospel.  *  That  he  was 
acquainted  with  Matthew  in  its  completed  form  appears 
from  his  reference  to  the  tradition  of  the  miraculous  con- 
ception of  Christ,  whom  he  calls,  "  Our  God,  Jesus  the 
Christ. "f  He  says  that  Jesus  was  baptized  in  order  that 
he  might  purify  the  water — an  idea  which  he  certainly 
did  not  find  in  the  Gospels  as  known  to  us.  Not  a  quota- 
tion, but  a  reminiscence  of  Matt.  xiL  33,  or  of  Luke  vi. 
44,  are  the  words,  "The  tree  is  manifest  from  its  fruit."  \ 
There  is  an  almost  exact  reproduction  of  the  words  in 
Matt.  xvi.  26,  "  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the 
whole  world  and  lose  his  own  life  ? "  §  A  similar  case 
occurs  in  the  citation  of  the  words,  "  He  that  is  able  to 
receive  it,  let  him  receive  it,"  the  variation  from  the 
canonical  text  indicating  a  free  quotation.  [  The  anoint- 
ing of  the  head  of  Jesus  is  mentioned,  and  treated  as 
having  a  spiritual  and  general  significance,  Jesus  having 
received  the  ointment  in  order  that  he  might  breathe  in- 
corruption  upon  the  Church.  "  These  are  not  a  plant  of 
my  Father"  is  a  reminiscence  of  Matt.  xv.  13,  "Every 
plant  which  my  Father  hath  not  planted,"  etc. 

The  question  of  the  acquaintance  of  the  writer  of  these 
Epistles  with  the  fourth  Gospel  has  been  warmly  dis- 
cussed. Expressions  certainly  occur  which  are  similar  to 
phrases  found  in  this  Gospel,  e.  g.,  "  The  prince  of  this 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  123. 

f  Ad  Eph.  xviii.     'O  ydp  &EOIS  rjfJLGdV  'fydovt  6  Xpidrot. 
$  (pavepov  TO  dsrdpov,  Ad  Eph.  xiv. 
§  Ad  Rom.  vi. 

||  The  Epistle  (Ad  Smyrn.  vi.)  reads  6  XGOftf&T  #&?/>ez'rGi>,  Matt.  xix.  12, 
xoopeir 


THE   CANON.  59 

world,"  "  the  living  waters,"  and  "  the  bread  of  God  which 
is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ."  *  There  appears  to  be  no 
reason  for  denying  to  him  an  acquaintance  with  the  fourth 
Gospel  which  would  not  bear  against  his  knowledge  of 
some  of  the  first  three,  since  his  use  of  the  synoptic  his- 
tories is  largely  based  upon  reminiscence,  and  the  fourth 
Gospel  seems  to  stand  upon  substantially  the  same  footing 
in  his  mind.  Scholten's  argument  to  the  contrary,  which 
does  not  take  account  of  all  the  facts,  while  ingenious,  is 
not  conclusive.f  Hilgenfeld,  though  formerly  denying, 
has  in  recent  works  conceded  the  probability  of  the  use 
of  the  Johannean  record  by  the  author  of  these  Epistles4 
In  reference  to  the  resurrection-body  of  Jesus  there  ap- 
pears to  be  a  quotation  from  a  record  different  from  our 
Gospels.  Jesus  is  represented  as  having  come  to  Peter 
and  those  about  him  after  his  resurrection,  and  to  have 
said  to  them  :  "  Touch  me  and  see  that  I  am  not  an  in- 
corporeal demon  §  ;  and  straightway  they  touched  him,  and 
believed,  being  convinced  by  his  flesh  and  his  spirit."  | 
There  are  here,  it  is  true,  points  of  contact  with  Luke 
xxiv.  36,  and  with  the  account  of  the  unbelief  of  Thomas 
in  John  xx.  24  ;  but  the  divergences  from  these  records  are 
such  as  to  make  it  very  probable  that  an  apocryphal  Gos- 
pel furnished  the  citation.  Eusebius  remarks  regarding 
this  quotation  that  he  does  not  know  whence  it  was  taken.T 
Jerome,  however,  found  a  similar  or  the  same  account  in 
the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  for  he  reports  that,  accord- 

*  Ad  Rom.  vii.  ;  ad  Phil.  vii.  f  Die  altest.  Zeug.  p.  53  f. 

\  In  Kanon  und  Kritik  des  N.  T.,  1863,  he  concedes  "a  preponderating 
probability"  ;  in  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  1875,  pp.  72,  73,  he  says  that  the 
fourth  Gospel  belonged  to  the  Evayyekiov  of  the  writer,  and  that  the  en- 
tire theology  of  the  Epistles  is  grounded  upon  it. 


1  Ad  Smyrn.  iii.  f  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  36. 


60  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

ing  to  this  Gospel,  the  disciples  took  Jesus  for  an  incor- 
poreal demon.  *  Origen  also  found  in  the  writing  Petri 
Doctrina  that  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples  quod  not  sit  dce- 
monium  incorporeale.  That  the  author  of  the  Ignatian 
Epistles,  who  nowhere  shows  any  well-defined  conception 
of  canonicity,  should  have  quoted  from  an  apocryphal 
Gospel,  is  rather  to  be  expected  than  otherwise. 

4. PAPIAS    OF    HIERAPOLIS    AND    HEGESIPPUS. 

Papias  is  reported  by  Eusebius  to  have  written  a  work 
entitled  "  Exposition  of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord,"  f  in 
five  books.  Irenaeus  says  that  he  was  a  hearer  of  John 
and  a  companion  of  Polycarp,  a  statement  which  need  not 
be  discussed  for  the  present  purpose.  The  writing  men- 
tioned by  Eusebius  was  probably  composed  not  far  from 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  the  fragments  of 
Papias'  testimony  which  have  been  preserved  are  impor- 
tant for  the  history  of  the  canon,  since  he  was  especially 
occupied  with  the  evangelic  literature  and  tradition.  The 
fragment  from  Papias'  book,  preserved  by  Eusebius,:): 
runs  to  the  effect  that  he  gave  place  in  his  "  expositions  " 
to  everything  that  he  learned  from  the  elders ;  that 
whenever  he  met  any  one  who  had  been  a  follower  of  the 
elders  he  inquired  about  the  discourses  of  these  ;  and  that 
he  did  not  think  that  he  could  derive  so  much  profit  from 
the  contents  of  books  as  from  the  utterances  of  a  living 
and  abiding  voice.  It  is  important  to  notice  that  we  have 
here  at  length  a  mention  of  books  as  records  of  the  Gos- 

*  Demon  in  the  good  sense,  of  course,  i.  e.t  "a  spirit  inferior  to  God,  supe- 
rior to  men  "  ;  rtav  TO  dai/^oviov  jusra^v  k6n  Qsov  rs  ual 
Plato. 

f  Xoyicov  KVpiaKGa 

\  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 


THE   CANON.  6 1 

pel-tradition.  What  these  books  were,  Eusebius  proceeds 
to  inform  us  :  "  Of  Matthew  he  [Papias]  stated  as  follows : 
'  Matthew  composed  the  Oracles  *  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,f 
and  every  one  translated  them  as  he  was  able.' "  As  to 
Mark,  Eusebius  reports  that  Papias  said  :  "And  John  the 
presbyter  also  said  this :  '  Mark  being  the  interpreter  of 
Peter,  whatever  he  recorded  he  wrote  with  great  accuracy, 
but  not,  however,  in  the  order  in  which  it  was  spoken  or 
done  by  our  Lord,  for  he  neither  knew  nor  followed  our 
Lord,  but  was  a  follower  of  Peter,  who  gave  him  such  in- 
formation as  was  necessary,  but  not  to  give  a  history  of 
our  Lord's  discourses.  Wherefore  Mark  has  not  erred  in 
anything  by  writing  some  things  as  he  has,  for  he  was  care- 
fully attentive  to  one  thing,  not  to  pass  by  anything  that 
he  heard,  or  to  state  anything  falsely  in  these  accounts.' ' 

Without  undertaking  to  determine  here  whether  the 
Syro-Chaldaic  Matthew  and  the  Mark  which  Papias  men- 
tions were  our  canonical  first  and  second  Gospels  or  earlier 
writings  which  served  as  a  basis  for  them,  it  is  sufficient  to 
observe  that  the  books  referred  to  are  a  sort  of  Gospel- 
writings,  and  that  he  speaks  of  only  two  works  of  the 
kind.  His  manner  of  introducing  them  is  significant.  He 
appears  to  regard  their  composition  as  the  work  of  ordi- 
nary historians,  whose  records  he  proposes  to  supplement 
by  such  information  as  he  may  be  able  to  collect.  There 
is  no  intimation  in  his  language  that  he  believed  them  to 
have  been  inspired,  or  in.  any  supernatural  way  guarded 
against  mistakes.  One  simply  "  wrote "  ;  the  other  was 
"  carefully  attentive  not  to  pass  by  anything  that  he 
heard,  and  to  state  nothing  falsely."  Yet  this  one  is 
chargeable,  it  appears,  with  defect  in  arrangement.  Of 
writings  as  canonical — that  is,  as  exclusively  to  be  received 

*  TO.  Xoyia.  \  Probably  Syro-Chaldaic. 


62  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

— he  betrays  no  conception.  In  fact,  the  books  which  he 
knows  he  thinks  to  be  inferior  as  sources  of  the  informa- 
tion that  he  is  seeking  for  the  purpose  of  making  his  "  ex- 
position "  to  the  living  voice  of  oral  tradition.  Yet  that 
this  "  unwritten  tradition  "  needed  more  careful  sifting 
than  it  received  from  Papias  may  be  inferred  from  the 
remark  of  Eusebius  that  he  gathered  from  this  source 
"  certain  strange  parables  of  our  Lord  and  his  doctrine  and 
some  other  matters  rather  too  fabulous."  His  account  of 
the  death  of  Judas,  for  example,  shows  that  he  put  confi- 
dence in  sources  which  do  not  agree  with  our  canonical 
records.  He  relates  that  Judas'  body,  "  having  so  swollen 
that  he  could  not  pass  where  a  chariot  could  easily  pass,  he 
was  crushed  by  the  chariot  so  that  his  bowels  were 
emptied  out."  *  Now  it  is  evident  either  that  the  work 
by  Matthew  which  he  knew,  did  not  contain  the  account  of 
the  death  of  Judas  which  is  now  found  in  our  first  Gos- 
pel, or  that  he  preferred  some  other  source  of  information. 
Again,  according  to  Eusebius,  "  he  relates  a  story  of  a 
woman  accused  of  many  sins  before  the  Lord,  which  is 
contained  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews." 

Although  Eusebius  declares  that  he  will  "  carefully 
show  "  what  use  the  early  writers  of  the  Church  made  of 
the  acknowledged  writings  and  what  opinions  they  ex- 
pressed of  them,  he  does  not  mention  any  reference  by 
Papias  to  our  third  and  fourth  canonical  Gospels.  Hilgen- 
feld's  inference  that  Papias  knew  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
because  he  speaks  with  disapproval  of  employing  "  many  " 
witnesses  with  disparaging  reference  to  the  noKkoi  In  the 
prologue  of  this  evangelist's  record,  appears  strained.f 

*  Preserved  in  QEcumenius,  Comm.  in  Acta  Apostol. 
f  Kanon  u.  Krit.  p.  14.      I  do  not  find  this  inference  drawn  in  the  later 
Einleitung. 


THE   CANON.  63 

Lightfoot's  argument  that  Papias  was  acquainted  with  the 
fourth  Gospel  drawn  from  the  silence  of  Eusebius  as  to 
any  reference  to  it  by  him  is  trivial.*  Having  taken  pains 
to  quote  what  he  said  about  the  first  two  Gospels,  the 
historian  could  hardly  have  omitted  to  mention  a  refer- 
ence to  the  other  two,  or  one  of  them,  had  it  been  found  in 
Papias'  work.  As  there  is  no  reason,  however,  for  supposing 
that  he  was  not  acquainted  with  our  third  Gospel,  his 
omission  of  all  mention  of  it,  which  must  be  inferred  from 
Eusebius'  silence,  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained.  It 
is  reported  that  he  regarded  the  Apocalypse  as  inspired, 
and  his  favorable  opinion  of  this  book  accords  with  his 
millenarian  tendencies.  As  a  Jewish  Christian  and  a  mil- 
lenarian  it  would  not  be  strange  that  he  should  regard 
with  little  favor  the  Pauline  third  Gospel.  In  fact,  he  ap- 
pears to  have  passed  Paul  by  without  mention  and  to 
have  quoted  none  of  his  Epistles,  although,  according  to 
Eusebius,  he  "  made  use  of  testimonies  from  I  Peter  and 
I  John."  f  Altogether  he  is  a  poor  witness  for  the  doctrine 
that  the  Gospels  were  recognized  as  canonical  or  inspired 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

Hegesippus,  a  Palestinian  Jewish  Christian,  made  a 
journey  to  Rome  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
visiting  many  churches  on  his  way.  A  few  years  later  he 
wrote  "  Memoirs,  \  in  five  books,  of  the  unerring  tradition 
of  the  apostolic  message  in  a  very  simple  style."  §  Only 
meagre  fragments  of  this  work  have  been  preserved  by 
Eusebius.  He  found,  it  appears,  on  his  way  "  the  same 
doctrine,"  and  especially  in  Corinth  was  he  refreshed  by 
finding  the  "  true  doctrine."!  What  this  right  doctrine 

*  Essays  on  Supernal.  Rel.  p.  49.  \  -uTtojuvT/juara. 

f  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.   39.  §  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  8. 

|  opBo's 


64  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

was  to  him  is  important  for  his  relation  to  the  canon.  He 
is  pleased  to  find  prevailing  everywhere  "  that  which  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the  Lord  enjoin."  Now  we 
know  very  well  what  he  must  have  meant  by  "  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets."  In  accordance  with  the  prevailing 
views  of  his  time,  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
covered  by  these  words  and  recognized  as  authority.  The 
first  steps  towards  a  New-Testament  canon  are  indicated 
by  joining  with  this  ancient  standard  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  or  the  sayings  of  Christ.  But  the  first  steps  only 
are  visible  here.  Hegesippus  does  not  mention  any  one 
of  our  four  Gospels  as  a  source  of  this  doctrine  of  the 
Lord,  and  had  he  mentioned  even  one  of  them,  it  is  not 
probable  that  Eusebius  would  have  failed  to  record  the 
fact.  Of  a  series  of  canonical  New-Testament  writings  he 
does  not  reveal  any  conception.  On  the  contrary,  Euse- 
bius expressly  states  that  he  quoted  from  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews.*  In  the  fragments  of  his  writings  which 
have  been  preserved,  there  are  allusions  to  the  Gospel- 
history  which  appear  to  support  the  opinion  that  he  was 
acquainted  with  our  first  and  third  Gospels.  It  is  true  that 
the  reminiscences  might  have  had  their  source  in  the  oral 
tradition  or  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  but  since  our 
Gospels  were  undoubtedly  in  existence  when  he  wrote, 
there  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing  him  to  have  been 
ignorant  of  them.f  The  important  fact  is,  he  did  not 

*  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  22.  The  conclusion  of  the  author  of  Supernatural 
Religion,  4th  ed.,  vol.  i.  p.  437,  that  Hegesippus  used  only  this  Gospel  is 
quite  unwarranted. 

\  The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  is  needlessly  strenuous  on  this 
point,  and  complains  unreasonably  that  "  an  able  and  accomplished  critic  like 
Hilgenfeld "  should  conclude  that  Hegesippus  knew  the  third  Gospel. 
Another  "  able  and  accomplished  critic,"  Holtzmann,  concedes  that  he  knew 
our  first  two  Gospels.  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  125. 


THE    CANON.  65 

ascribe  to  any  Gospel  or  Gospels  of  our  New  Testament 
exclusive  canonical  authority  or  inspiration,  nor  even 
mention  them  by  name.  This  fact  is  incontestable  so  far 
as  accessible  evidence  is  concerned.  There  is  no  evidence 
of  his  acquaintance  with  the  fourth  Gospel.* 

5. — JUSTIN  MARTYR'S  GOSPELS. 

Justin,  of  Greek  descent,  a  student  of  Grecian  philoso- 
phy, a  convert  to  Christianity,  "  the  only  true  and  useful 
philosophy,"  was  the  author  of  two  defences  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  and  a  dialogue  with  a  Jew,  Trypho,  which 
were  written  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
The  other  works  ascribed  to  him  are  probably  spurious. 
It  promoted  the  attainment  of  his  object  in  writing  to 
make  extensive  quotations  from  the  early  records  of 
Christian  history,  and  on  this  account  his  works  are  of 
the  greatest  importance  to  the  study  of  the  canon.  The 
controversy  about  the  records  which  he  used  and  his 
manner  of  using  them,  which  has  been  carried  on  for 
more  than  half  a  century,  constitutes  a  considerable  litera- 
ture. This  controversy  cannot  be  said  to  have  solved  all 
the  difficulties  of  the  problem,  but  it  has  brought  to  light 
facts  of  great  importance.  Justin  frequently  informs  us 
that  his  quotations  as  to  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus 
are  taken  from  a  work  or  works  which  he  calls  "  Memoirs 
of  the  Apostles, "f  but  he  does  not  designate  the  authors 

*  Even  Tischendorf  does  not  claim  this.  There  is  a  phrase  preserved  in 
Eusebius'  fragment,  ii.  23,  concerning  the  death  of  James,  "  the  brother  of 
the  Lord,"  to  the  effect  that  some  one  asked  James,  "Who  is  the  door  of 
[or  to]  Jesus  ?  "  (rt$  77  Ovpa  rov  Irjtiov:}.  Westcott,  although  conceding  that 
the  phrase  may  mean  "door  to  Jesus"  instead  of  "door  spoken  of  by 
Jesus,"  yet  hangs  on  this  slender  thread  his  argument  for  Hegesippus' 
acquaintance  with  the  fourth  Gospel !  Canon,  p.  208. 

•J-  aTCo/iivrfinovEv^KXTCC  T(&V  ctTtotfToXadv,  i.  e.,  Memoirs  [written]  by 
the  Apostles. 


66  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

of  these  Memoirs  by  name.  The  number  of  citations  is 
very  large,  embracing  the  most  important  events  in  the 
life  of  Jesus  and  many  of  his  teachings,  and  their  resem- 
blances to  and  differences  from  their  parallels  in  our 
Gospels  render  the  question  of  their  source  very  difficult. 
Various  theories  have  been  advocated  :  That  Justin  drew 
from  an  original  or  originals,  from  which  our  Gospels  were 
derived  ;  that  his  Memoirs  were  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews ;  that  he  used  a  harmony,  or  combined  nar- 
rative ;  and  that  our  canonical  Gospels  furnished  the 
greater  part  of  his  materials.  It  is  not  consistent  with 
the  plan  of  this  treatise  to  enter  into  a  minute  examina- 
tion of  this  question.  A  few  of  the  prominent  facts 
regarding  the  citations  and  Justin's  relation  to  his  sources 
will  be  sufficient  to  determine  his  evidence  in  the  matter 
of  the  canon  of  the  Gospels. 

The  way  in  which  Justin  speaks  of  his  sources  arrests 
attention.  "  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  "  appears  to  be  a 
somewhat  inexact  term,  if  it  was  intended  to  apply  to  our 
four  records,  only  two  of  which  were  ostensibly  written  by 
apostles.  Once  he  adds  to  the  term  the  explanatory  words, 
"which  are  called  Gospels,"  and  once  he  quotes  words 
which  he  says  are  "  written  in  the  Gospel."  It  is  impos- 
sible to  determine  what  Gospel  or  Gospels  he  had  in 
mind,  since,  with  the  single  exception  of  a  Gospel  of 
Peter  mentioned  once,  he  does  not  connect  any  particular 
authors  with  his  sources.  It  is  well  known  that  many 
writings  ascribed  to  apostles  and  others  were  early  in 
circulation  purporting  to  be  Gospels,*  and  it  would  be  a 

*  The  Gospels  according  to  Peter,  James,  the  Twelve,  Nicodemus,  the 
Nazarenes,  Thomas,  etc.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  25  ;  Origen,  i.,  in 
Lucam,  in  Matt.  x.  17  ;  Tischendorf,  Evang.  Apocr.  ;  Nicolas,  Les 
Evangiles  Apocryphes. 


THE    CANON.  6/ 

begging  of  the  question  under  discussion  to  assert  that, 
whenever  Justin  mentioned  Gospels  in  general,  he  had  in 
mind  just  our  four  Gospels.  Again,  Justin  says  that  the 
Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  or  the  writings  of  the  prophets 
were  read  in  the  assemblies  of  the  Christians  on  Sundays.* 
This  fact,  however,  unfortunately  throws  no  light  on  the 
character  of  the  Memoirs,  or  the  estimation  in  which  they 
were  held  with  regard  to  canonicity  or  authority.  Many 
of  the  early  Christian  writings  which  did  not  attain 
canonical  rank  when  critical  discrimination  in  this  regard 
came  to  be  applied  to  them  were  publicly  read  in  these 
assemblies.  Such  were  an  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome, 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  and 
others.f  What  Justin  does  not  say  about  his  sources 
is  also  of  importance.  He  not  only  does  not  give  the 
names  of  their  authors,  but  omits  to  mention  or  imply 
that  they  were  regarded  as  canonical,  /.  c.,  as  exclusively 
recognized,  or  as  inspired.  He  cites  them  simply  as 
historical  documents.  Yet  he  was  by  no  means  un- 
familiar with  a  doctrine  of  inspiration,  as  applied  to 
writers,  for  he  held  a  very  rigid  theory  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  authors  of  the  Old-Testament  books.  Inspiration, 
he  teaches,  dispenses  with  the  necessity  for  rhetoric  or 
dialectics,  and  the  subjects  of  it  have  simply  to  abandon 
themselves  to  the  action  of  the  Spirit.  The  divine 
plectrum  comes  down  from  heaven,  and  uses  them  as 
a  harp  to  reveal  celestial  knowledge.  He  has  been  called 
the  Doctor  of  Inspiration,  and  the  originator  of  the  doc- 
trine of  plenary  inspiration.^:  It  is,  however,  significant 

*  Apol.  67. 

f  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  3,  iv.  23  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Evangelien 
Justin's,  p.  19  ;  Volkmar,  Ursprung  uns.  Evang.  p.  91  ;  Schwegler,  Das 
nachapost.  Zeitalter,  i.  p.  228. 

\  Reuss,  Histoire  du  Canon,  1863,  p.  50. 


68  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

that  he  puts  faith  in  the  statements  of  his  Memoirs, 
because  the  events  related  in  them  had  been  foretold  by 
the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.*  The  highest  cer- 
tainty, he  says,  respecting  incidents  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  is 
to  be  attained  by  regarding  "  what  was  foretold."  f  The 
presumption  shows  itself  throughout  his  writings  that  his 
historical  Christian  sources  are  to  be  credited,  because  in 
them  the  words  of  the  "  spirit  of  prophecy "  are  con- 
firmed. It  is  not  open  to  question  that  his  Memoirs, 
whatever  writings  they  may  have  been,  were  not  put 
by  him  upon  an  equality  with  the  Old-Testament  books 
as  products  of  inspiration. 

While  some  of  Justin's  citations  from  his  Memoirs 
present  no  deviations  from  our  Gospels  which  are  not 
explicable  on  the  hypothesis  of  a  free  quotation  of  them 
from  memory,  others  show  marked  divergences  from  the 
parallels  in  these  records,  and  furnish  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  he  used  other  documents.  His  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament  are  also  often  inexact,  and  passages 
are  sometimes  referred  to  the  wrong  authors.  Hence 
mere  carelessness  of  quotation  is  not  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish the  theory  that  his  Memoirs  were  not  our  Gospels. 
The  mention,  however,  of  incidents  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
which  are  not  recorded  in  our  Gospels  presents  difficulties 
which  are  not  easy  of  solution  on  the  hypothesis  that  he 
did  not  make  use  of  other  records.  The  statement,  for 
example,  that  Jesus  was  born  in  a  cave  near  Bethlehem  \ 
can  hardly  be  accounted  for  by  the  hypothesis  of  erro- 
neous quotation  from  memory.  The  supposition  favored 
by  Semisch,  that  this  variation  crept  in  from  oral  tradi- 
tion, might  be  allowed  if  the  writer  were  Papias,  who 
declared,  as  has  been  shown,  a  preference  for  tradition. 

*  Apol.  i.  33.  f  Apol.  i.  35.  \  Dial.  78. 


THE   CANON.  69 

But  Justin  expressly  states  that  the  sources  of  his  infor- 
mation are  written,  and  he  should  not  be  interpreted  on 
any  other  theory  except  for  the  most  cogent  reasons. 
That  there  is  no  need  to  resort  to  tradition  in  this  case 
appears  from  the  fact  that  several  uncanonical  Gospels 
record  this  tradition  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  a  cave.* 
The  tradition  was  widespread,  and  if  he  did  not  quote  it 
from  some  one  of  the  existing  records  which  contain  it, 
the  presumption  is  very  strong  that  he  found  it  in  his 
Memoirs.  Justin  further  relates  that  at  his  baptism  Jesus 
was  regarded  as  the  son  of  Joseph,  the  carpenter,  and 
himself  as  a  carpenter,  u  for  he  was  in  the  habit  of  work- 
ing as  a  carpenter  among  men,  making  plows  and  yokes, 
by  which  he  taught  the  symbols  of  righteousness  and  an 
active  life."  f  The  expression  thrice  recorded,  that  Jesus 
sat  by  the  Jordan,  can  hardly  be  accounted  for  except  on 
the  supposition  that  it  was  contained  in  a  written  Gospel 
which  Justin  used.  Justin  reports  that  when  Jesus  went 
into  the  water  for  baptism  a  fire  was  kindled  in  the 
Jordan,  and  that  when  he  came  out  of  the  water  a  voice 
came  from  the  heavens :  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  son,  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee."^:  These  incidents  are  all 
wanting  in  our  Gospels,  and  the  task  of  criticism  is  to 
account  for  their  appearance  in  Justin.  The  hypothesis 
of  a  traditional  origin  is,  as  we  have  seen,  tenable  if  these 
accounts  are  not  found  in  written  records  which  he  may 
be  supposed  to  have  known,  and  may  have  had  as  a  part 
of  his  Memoirs.  The  legend  that  Jesus  made  plows  and 
yokes  as  symbols,  etc.,  is  only  implied  in  the  Gospel  of 

*  The  Protevangelium  of  James,  the  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  of  the 
Saviour  ;  Tischendorf,  Evan.  Apocr.  i.  pp.  105,  171  ;  Nicolas  Les  Evang. 
Apocr.  p.  54.  Tischendorf  thinks  that  Justin  probably  derived  this  account 
from  the  Protevangelium. 

f  Dial.  88.  \  Ib. 


?0  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Thomas,  where  it  is  written  that  his  father  was  a  maker 
of  these  implements.  But  the  story  of  the  fire  kindled 
in  the  Jordan  is  found  in  the  fragments  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews.  Here  also  are  the  words  said 
to  have  been  heard  from  heaven  in  the  form  in  which 
Justin  has  them,  i.  e.,  "  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee," 
instead  of  "  in  thee  am  I  well  pleased,"  as  in  our  Gospels. 
The  legend  of  the  fire  in  the  Jordan  is  also  found  in  the 
writing  called  "  The  Preaching  of  Paul."  Some  manu- 
scripts of  Luke,  but  not  the  oldest,  contain  it,  and  it  is 
found  in  Cod.  D  and  the  Itala  version  of  Matthew. 

Justin  also  reports  that  in  the  time  of  Christ  the  people 
attributed  his  miracles  to  magic,  "  for  they  ventured  to 
call  him  a  magician  and  a  deceiver  of  the  people.*  This 
might  be  regarded  as  a  reminiscence  of  the  account  in 
our  records  of  the  charge  that  Jesus  cast  out  demons  by 
Beelzebub ;  but  apart  from  the  probability  that  had  he 
depended  solely  on  our  Gospels  he  would  have  stated  the 
matter  in  their  language,  which  is  striking,  and  not  easily 
forgotten,  the  consideration  is  of  no  little  weight  that  his 
version  of  it  is  contained  in  the  uncanonical  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus  to  which  he  in  another  place  refers  by  name.f 
The  statement  that  after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  all  the 
apostles  fled,  "  having  denied  him,"  is  contrary  to  our 
Gospels,  which  mention  only  the  denial  of  Peter.  An 
incident  of  the  crucifixion  is  very  differently  reported 
from  the  account  in  our  Gospels.  According  to  Justin, 
those  standing  about  said,  "  Let  him  who  raised  the  dead 
*  Dial.  69,  nai  yap  [idyov  avrov  sro^jucor  'kiytiv  Hal 


f  Xeyovtiiv  avrao  yorjS  sdrir,  Evang.  Nicod.  Tischendorf,  Evang. 
Apocr.  i.  p.  208  ;  Credner,  Beitrage,  i.  p.  255  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Evang. 
Justin's,  pp.  207,  258.  The  reference  to  tradition  by  Semisch  is  open  to  the 
objections  previously  mentioned. 


THE    CANON.  /I 

deliver  himself."  Again,  "  Those  who  saw  him  crucified 
also  wagged  their  heads  each  one  of  them,  and  distorted 
their  lips,  and  screwing  their  noses  one  to  another  spoke 
ironically  these  words  which  are  written  in  the  Memoirs 
of  the  Apostles :  '  He  declared  himself  the  son  of  God ; 
having  come  down,  let  him  walk  about ;  let  God  save 
him.' "  *  The  divergences  in  this  account  from  our 
canonical  records  are  so  great  that  it  cannot  fairly  be 
claimed  that  the  quotation  was  made  from  them.  The 
exactness  of  the  reference  is  striking :  "  words  which  are 
written  in  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles."  This  is  the 
language  of  one  who  is  conscious  of  speaking  by  the 
book.  It  is  futile  to  plead  aberration  of  memory  to 
account  for  such  divergences  as  these,  and  a  traditional 
oral  source  is  excluded  by  the  pointed  reference  to  the 
document. 

In  a  very  few  instances  Justin's  citations  agree  very 
nearly  with  parallel  passages  in  our  Gospels.  These  have 
been  pointed  out  by  Tischendorf  and  De  Wette,  and  two 
or  three  of  them  are  here  subjoined:  Matt.  viii.  11,  12, 
"  Many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall 
sit  down,"  etc. ;  Justin,  "  They  shall  come  from  the  west 
and  from  the  east,"  etc.,  three  times  with  the  same  varia- 
tions. Matt.  xii.  38,  39,  "  Then  certain  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  answered  him  saying,  *  Master,  we  would  see  a 
sign  from  thee.'  But  he  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
1  An  evil  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign 
and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but  the  sign  of  the 
prophet  Jonah  *  "  ;  Justin,  "  It  is  written  in  the  Memoirs 
that  some  of  your  nation  questioning  him  said,  '  Show  us 
a  sign/  and  he  answered  them,  '  An  evil  and  adulterous 
generation  seeketh  after  a  sign,  and  no  sign  shall  be  given 

*  Dial.  101. 


/2  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

to  them  but  the  sign  of  Jonah.'  "  Matt.  v.  28,  "  Every 
one  that  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her  hath  com- 
mitted adultery  with  her  already  in  his  heart";  Justin, 
"  Whosoever  may  have  gazed  on  a  woman  to  lust  after 
her  hath  committed  adultery  already  in  the  heart/' 

It  is  needless  to  continue  the  examination  of  these 
quotations.  The  problem  of  Justin's  Gospels  does  not 
admit  of  an  exact  and  unquestionable  solution  ;  yet  it  ap- 
pears to  have  exercised  a  strange  fascination  upon  students 
of  the  canon,  who  have  devoted  to  it  hundreds  of  pages 
and  one  or  two  entire  treatises.  Rather  than  to  go  on 
and  examine  in  detail  the  hundreds  of  quotations — a  pro- 
cedure which,  as  Reuss  says,  has  somewhat  the  appearance 
of  cavilling  * — it  is  perhaps  better  to  conclude  this  study 
with  a  statement  of  the  results  which  have  been  reached 
by  two  of  the  most  distinguished  scholars  who  have  given 
the  subject  a  very  thorough  and  conscientious  study. 
Credner  thus  substantially  sums  up  the  results  of  the  ex- 
tended and  minute  investigation  which  he  made  of  the 
subject  in  his  Beitrage  in  1832:  Justin  was  acquainted 
with  our  canonical  Gospels,  but  used  them  little  or  not  at 
all  immediately.  The  basis  of  his  quotations  was  a  writ- 
ing different  from  them,  which  can  hardly  have  been  any 
other  than  his  own  recension  of  the  manifold  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  the  same  which  often  appears 
also  as  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  and  must  have  arisen  from  a 
harmonizing  combination  of  the  evangelic  history.f  Hil- 
genfeld,  who  in  1850  published  an  extended  treatise  on 
Justin's  Gospels, \  thus  presents  his  conclusions  in  sub- 

*  Histoire  du  Canon,  p.  57. 

f  Geschichte  des  neutest.  Kanon,  herausgeg.  von  Volkmar,  1860. 
\  Kritische  Untersuch.   ilber  die  Evang.   Justins,  der  Clement.  Homil. 
und  Marcion's. 


THE    CANON.  73 

stance:  Justin  knew  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  but  his 
acquaintance  with  John's  Gospel  is  still  in  doubt.*  He 
advances  beyond  Papias,  and  marks  a  certain  contrast  to 
him  in  that  he  totally  excludes  the  oral  tradition  as  a 
source  of  the  knowledge  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  has 
every  thing  which  relates  to  the  Saviour  in  written  Gos- 
pels. These  apostolical  Memoirs  Justin  reckons  among 
the  writings  which  belong  to  the  Christians  (rj^irspa 
Gvyypa^ata),  and  reports  that  they  were  read  along 
with  the  writings  of  the  prophets  in  the  Sunday-assem- 
blies for  worship.  Thus  in  him  we  approach  nearer  in 
every  respect  to  the  conception  of  a  collection  of  the 
sacred  writings  of  Christianity.  Yet  with  all  the  approxi- 
mation it  cannot  be  denied  that  Justin  limits  the  concep- 
tion of  holy  Scripture  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  does 
not  transfer  it  to  the  Christian  writings.  Everywhere, 
whether  he  contend  with  Jew  or  heathen,  only  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  recognized  by  him  as  holy 
Scriptures  or  ypacpai  Justin  agrees  entirely  with  Papias 
in  holding  exclusively  to  the  twelve  Apostles.  Besides 
the  Gospels  he  recognizes  the  Apocalypse  as  the  work  of 
the  Apostle  John.  But  no  mention  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
and  his  letters  is  found  in  Justin ;  rather  they  are  directly 
excluded.  Accordingly,  the  Epistles  of  Paul  are  not 
reckoned  by  him  among  rj^erepa  avyypa^^ara.  The 
Gospel  of  John  might  possibly  have  found  admission  into 
his  original  Gospel-harmony  on  account  of  the  name  of 
the  apostle.  But  in  the  evangelic  quotations  of  Justin 
we  find  much  that  is  so  peculiar  as  to  require  reference  to 
an  uncanonical  Gospel,  f 

*  But  in  his  Einleitung,  1875,  Hilgenfeld  says  that  it  is  hard  to  deny 
Justin's  use  of  John's  Gospel, 
f  Kanon  und  Kritik,  p.  27  f. 


74  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

The  attempt  to  explain  Justin's  quotations  by  the 
entire  exclusion  of  our  Gospels,  by  the  author  of  Super- 
natural Religion,  and  that  of  Westcott  and  Norton  by 
the  exclusion  of  all  other  sources  than  these  except  oral 
tradition,  are  both  extreme  and  hardly  tenable.  The  es- 
sential facts  in  the  case  are,  however,  independent  of  the 
vexed  question  whether  Justin  was  acquainted  with  our 
Gospels  or  not,  and  are  rather  that,  granting  that  he  knew 
and  used  them,  he  nowhere  intimates  that  they  are  to  him 
anything  more  than  ordinary  historical  documents  ;  that 
he  does  not  regard  or  treat  them  as  exclusive  sources  of 
information,  but  draws  freely  from  another  source  or  other 
sources,  probably  written ;  that  he  fails  to  identify  any  of 
the  records  which  he  used  by  giving  the  names  of  their 
real  or  supposed  authors ;  that  the  only  sacred  Scripture 
that  he  recognizes  is  the  Old  Testament ;  that  the  sup- 
posed prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  relating  to  events 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  are  to  him  paramount  and  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  significance  of  these  events  for  the  divine 
mission  of  Christ ;  that  for  him  the  credibility  of  certain 
things  as  facts  related  of  Christ  in  the  evangelic  histories 
is  conditional  not  upon  the  veracity  of  these  histories,  but 
upon  just  this  prophetic  foretelling ;  and  that  finally  he 
does  not  reveal  in  his  writings  any  well-defined  discrimina- 
tion as  to  canonical  and  uncanonical  writings,  but  is 
apparently  unconscious  of  such  a  distinction. 

6. — THE    CLEMENTINE    HOMILIES,    BASILIDES,  AND    VALENTINUS. 

A  strange  and  interesting  product  of  the  controversy 
between  the  Jewish-Christian  and  Pauline  parties  in  the 
early  Church  is  the  Clementine  Homilies,*  a  work  which 

*  dementis  Roman!  quse  feruntur  Homiliae,  etc.,  A.  Schwegler,  1847  ; 
dementis  Rom.  quse  feruntur  Horn.  xx.  nunc  primum  integrae,  etc.,  ed. 
A.  R.  M.  Dressel,  1853. 


THE   CANON.  75 

was  written  in  the  interest  of  the  former  or  Ebionite  sect, 
and  represents  a  contest  of  arguments  between  Peter  and 
one  Simon  Magus,  supposed  to  personate  Paul,  "  the 
enemy  whose  lawless  and  foolish  teachings  the  gentiles 
accepted."*  The  exact  date  of  this  "  apocryphal  religious 
romance  "  cannot  be  determined,  but  it  should  probably 
be  placed  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century. 
Credner  judges  it  to  have  been  written  before  the  middle 
of  the  second  century, f  Ritschl  and  Tischendorf  about 
the  middle,;):  Volkmar  and  Baur  from  twenty-five  to  forty 
years  later,  §  and  Hilgenfeld,  160-180.  ||  It  was  forged  in 
the  name  of  Clement  of  Rome  in  accordance  with  the 
very  common  practice  in  that  age  of  perpetrating  pious 
frauds.  The  book  possesses  interest  not  as  a  literary 
production,  but  because  it  throws  light  on  a  momentous 
controversy  in  the  early  Church  and  on  the  question  of 
the  use  and  repute  of  the  Gospels  at  the  time  when  it  was 
written.  It  is  certainly  not  unimportant  in  this  latter 
respect,  even  though  it  be,  as  Westcott  remarks,  "  the 
product  of  an  isolated  speculator."  For  the  author 
should  be  presumed  not  to  speak  for  himself  alone,  but 
rather  to  represent  the  general  opinions  and  tendencies  of 
his  time,  at  least  so  far  as  the  particular  sectaries  in  ques- 
tion are  concerned. 

The  relation  of  the  writer  of  the  Homilies  to  the  evan- 
gelic history  is  very  similar  to  that  of  Justin  Martyr,  with 
the  exception  that  while  Justin  expressly  mentions  that 
his  sources  are  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,  this  writer  refers 

*  Baur,  Vorlesungen  ttber  Dogmengesch.  i.  I,  p.  155  ;  Westcott,  Canon, 
p.  285. 

f  Beitrage,  i.  p.  28. 

\  Ritschl,  Entstehung  der  altkath.  Kirche  ;  Tischendorf,  Wann  wurden, 
etc. 

§  Volkmar,  Ursprung  ;  Baur,  Vorlesungen,  etc. 

|  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  43. 


76  GOSPEL-  CKI TICISM. 

to  no  sources  whatever  in  a  general  way,  and  does  not 
quote  any  Gospel  by  name.  Of  a  large  number  of  refer- 
ences to  sayings  and  acts  of  Jesus  throughout  a  work  of 
considerable  extent  only  three  or  four  are  exact  quota- 
tions from  our  Gospels.  The  most  of  his  quotations 
present  divergences  more  or  less  marked  from  the  corre- 
sponding passages  in  the  canonical  records,  and  some  are 
not  found  in  them  at  all.  Passages  occur  which  are  com- 
binations of  elements  that  are  in  our  records  and  of  ma- 
terial foreign  to  them.  A  very  good  illustration  of  the 
last-mentioned  class  is  furnished  in  Horn.  ii.  19  compared 
with  Mark  vii.  24—30.  It  runs  as  follows  :  "  Justa,  who  is 
among  us,*  a  Syrophcenician  woman,  whose  daughter  was 
affected  by  a  sore  disease,  came  to  our  Lord  crying  out 
and  supplicating  that  he  would  heal  her  daughter.  But 
he,  being  also  asked  by  us,  said  :  '  It  is  not  meet  to  heal 
the  gentiles,  who  are  like  dogs  from  their  using  divers 
meats  and  practices,  while  the  table  in  the  kingdom  has 
been  granted  to  the  sons  of  Israel.'  But  she,  hearing  this 
and  desiring  to  partake,  like  a  dog,  of  the  crumbs  falling 
from  this  table,  having  changed,  i.e.,  leading  the  same  life 
as  the  sons  of  the  kingdom,  she  obtained,  as  she  asked, 
the  healing  of  her  daughter."  Here  not  only  do  the 
striking  variations  from  Mark's  account  point  to  a  differ- 
ent source,  but  the  mention  of  the  woman's  name  is  a  de- 
tail much  more  likely  to  have  been  preserved  in  a  written 
form  than  to  have  been  orally  transmitted  through  a 
period  of  more  than  a  hundred  years. 

Of  words  ascribed  to  Jesus  which  are  not  found  in  our 
Gospels  two  examples  must  suffice  :  "  Be  ye  approved 
money-changers  "  and  "  Why  do  ye  not  discern  the  good 
reason  of  the  Scriptures  ?  "  The  conclusion  of  Hilgen- 

*  The  representation  of  the  Syrophcenician  woman  as  still  living  accords 
with  the  writer's  intention  to  pass  his  work  off  for  a  very  early  composition. 


THE   CANON.  77 

feld,  who  has  made  a  very  thorough  study  of  the  Homilies, 
is  that  the  author  used  our  four  canonical  Gospels  along 
with  an  uncanonical  one.  He  may  have  been  more  favor- 
ably disposed  towards  Luke's  Gospel  on  account  of  its 
difference  from  Marcion's  recension  of  it,  and  he  may  have 
admitted  among  his  sources  that  of  John  by  reason  of  the 
name  of  the  Apostle.  But  this  gradual  recognition  of 
these  two  Gospels  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish-Christian  sect 
indicates  the  weakening  of  the  original  opposition  to 
writings  of  a  Pauline  tendency.  The  historical  influence 
which  removed  this  opposition  was  Catholicism,  or  the 
union  of  Christians  into  a  catholic,  united  Church.  This 
had  as  its  result  the  acceptance  of  the  Pauline  "  apostoli- 
con  "  and  the  entire  apostolic  Scripture-canon.*  In  the 
spirit  of  an  unbiassed  critic  this  writer  acknowledges  that 
since  the  discovery,  in  1853,  °f  ^e  latter  part  of  the 
Homilies  he  is  constrained  to  admit  that  their  author  was 
acquainted  with  the  fourth  Gospel.f  The  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  undertakes  too  much  in  supporting 
the  theory  that  the  writer  of  the  Homilies  did  not  make 
use  of  our  Gospels,  but  drew  entirely  from  other  sources.^ 
Sanday  concludes  that  "  the  facts  do  not  permit  us  to 
claim  the  exclusive  use  of  the  canonical  Gospels.  *  *  * 
But  that  they  were  used  mediately  or  immediately  and  to 
a  greater  or  less  degree  is  beyond  question."  §  With  this 
opinion  Westcott  substantially  agrees.] 

*  Kanon  und  Kritik,  p.  30. 

f  Ib.  p.  29,  Anmerk.  3,  Einleit.  pp.  43,  44.  The  most  important  pas- 
sage is  Horn.  xix.  22  :  "  Whether  did  this  man  sin  or  his  parents,  that  he 
was  born  blind  ?  "  compared  with  John  ix.  2  f. 

\  The  passage,  e.g.,  in  xix.  22,  he  regards  as  taken  from  a  source  which 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  also  used.  This  is  certainly  very  arbitrary. 
The  citation  of  a  Gospel  by  name  is  not  necessary  to  establish  its  existence 
at  least. 

§  The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  p.  186. 

||  Canon,  p.  287. 


78  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

The  distinction,  however,  between  knowing  and  using 
the  Gospels,  and  recognizing  them  as  an  exclusive  source 
of  information  regarding  the  life  and  teachings  of  Christ, 
cannot  be  too  sharply  drawn.  When  we  have  shown  that 
our  four  Gospels  were  quoted  by  a  writer  in  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  who  also  quoted  from  other  similar 
writings  without  making  any  discrimination  between  these 
different  sources,  we  are  far  from  having  established  the 
doctrine  that  the  Gospels  now  regarded  as  canonical  were 
then  so  regarded.  Rather  we  have  established  a  fact  pre- 
cisely the  opposite  to  this  doctrine.  When,  again,  we  find 
a  writer  using  our  Gospels  simply  as  ordinary  historical 
records  and  giving  no  intimation  of  special  regard  for 
them  as  sacred  or  inspired,  it  is  unwarrantable  to  argue 
that  he  had  attained  the  conception  of  canonicity.  Finally, 
if  the  writer  in  question  does  not  mention  any  one  of  our 
Gospels  by  the  name  of  its  reputed  author,  it  is  manifest 
that  no  inference  as  to  their  genuineness  can  be  drawn 
from  his  use  of  them. 

The  Ebionitism  which  was  represented  by  the  Clemen- 
tine Homilies,  although  regarded  by  some  as  the  purest 
form  of  original  Christianity,  has  passed  into  history  as  a 
heresy.  The  great  Pauline  conception  of  the  universal 
mission  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  enjoyed  the  fortune  of 
victory  which,  in  the  course  of  human  affairs,  generally 
comes  to  broad  ideas  in  conflict  with  ideas  that  are  nar- 
row. The  heresy  of  Gnosticism  also  had  its  day,  and  be- 
cause it  was  a  narrow  philosophy  its  day  was  short. 
Descended  from  the  Platonic  philosophy,  developed  in 
the  allegorizing  school  of  the  Alexandrian  Philo,  Gnosis 
assumed  peculiar  forms  in  the  early  Church.  A  mixture 
of  elements  contributed  by  Jewish  theology,  oriental 


THE   CANON.  79 

theosophy,  and  the  idealism  of  Plato,  dominated  by  the 
principle  of  dualism,  and  appropriating  in  an  eclectic  way 
certain  doctrines  of  Jesus,  was  the  Gnosticism  of  the 
second  century.  It  was  occupied  with  some  of  the  great 
problems  which  speculative  thought  has  always  struggled 
with,  and  has  never  solved,  such  as  the  origin  of  the 
world,  the  reconciliation  of  its  imperfections  with  the 
assumed  perfection  of  God,  how  and  why  evil  is  in  the 
world,  and  its  relation  to  the  divine  goodness.  It  was  a 
religious  philosophy  constructed  upon  the  fundamental 
principle  that  matter  is  essentially  evil.  Accordingly,  it 
was  based  upon  dualism,  and  is  thereby  seen  to  have  been 
a  product  of  heathen  modes  of  thought  rather  than  of 
Christianity.*  The  world  as  material  and  evil  could  not, 
according  to  this  philosophy,  have  proceeded  from  the 
Supreme  Being,  who  is  the  Inconceivable,  the  Abyss,  the 
Unnamable.  The  maker  of  the  world  was  a  subordinate 
power,  the  Demiourgos,  sometimes  apprehended  as  de- 
pendent on  the  Supreme  Being,  sometimes  as  hostile  to 
Him.  Judaism  was  subordinated,  and  regarded  either  as 
a  very  inferior  and  defective  revelation  of  God,  or  as 
wholly  the  work  of  the  Demiourgos.  Christ  held  a  most 
important  place  in  the  Gnostic  systems,  with  all  their 
variations  in  other  respects.  He  was  regarded  as  a  higher 
^Eon,  or  emanation  from  the  Divine  Being,  who  came 
forth  from  the  kingdom  of  light  for  the  redemption  of 
the  world  from  the  power  of  darkness.  With  his  name  is 
connected  everything  which  tends  to  maintain  the  con- 
nection of  the  totality  of  things,  to  unite  what  has  been 
torn  asunder,  to  bring  back  what  has  fallen  away,  to  attain 
the  upper  world  out  of  the  lower,  and  to  lead  to  the  per- 
fection of  the  entire  world-order.  He  is  the  goal  towards 
*  Baur,  Das  Christenthum,  etc.,  in  den  drei  ersten  Jahrh.,  1860,  p.  183. 


80  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

which  the  development  of  the  world  moves.  What  origi- 
nally was  salvation  only  in  an  ethical  and  religious  sense 
is  in  the  Gnostic  systems  the  restoration  and  completion 
of  the  whole  order  of  things.* 

That  these  philosophizers  undertook  to  bring  their 
speculations  into  some  sort  of  agreement  with  Christian 
doctrines  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Wishing  to  pass  for 
Christians  par  excellence,  they  sought  a  support  for  their 
doctrines  in  the  traditions  and  literature  of  Christianity. 
It  is  probable  that  of  all  the  systems  which  their  syncretism 
had  put  under  contribution  to  build  up  new  doctrines  on 
the  origin  of  evil,  on  the  relations  of  the  infinite  and  the 
finite,  and  on  the  means  of  elevating  man  to  God,  Christi- 
anity furnished  then  the  most  numerous  and  most  precious 
elements,  and  that  the  Church  offered  them  at  the  same 
time  the  audience  most  inclined  to  hear  them,  f 

No  little  controversy  has  been  carried  on  over  the  ques- 
tion whether  or  no  Basilides,  a  leader  cf  one  of  the  Gnostic 
sects,  who  lived  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century, 
used  our  canonical  Gospels.  His  writings  have  not  come 
down  to  us,  and  we  have  no  knowledge  of  them  except 
what  is  derived  from  the  writers  who  controverted  his 
teachings,  principally  Hippolytus,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  and  Origen.  An  examination  of  the  alleged 
quotations  shows  his  relation  to  the  evangelic  history  and 
tradition  to  have  been  very  similar  to  that  of  the  author 
of  the  Clementine  Homilies.  He  is  reported,  furthermore, 
to  have  written  a  Gospel  and  called  it  after  his  own  name4 
Neander  thinks  that  this  was  the  Gospel  according  to  the 

*  Baur,  Das  Christen thum,  etc.,  p.  189. 
\  Reuss,  Histoire  du  Canon,  p.  65. 

\  Ausus  fuit  Basilides  scribere  evangelium  et  suo  illud  nomine  titulare, 
Orig.  Horn.  ii.  in  Lucam. 


THE   CANON.  8 1 

Hebrews,  and  that  Basilides  brought  it  from  Syria  to 
Egypt.  Eusebius  states,  on  the  authority  of  Agrippa 
Castor,  that  he  composed  a  commentary  on  "  the  Gospel  " 
in  twenty-four  books.*  But  it  does  not  appear  what  this 
Gospel  (TO  evayy£\.iov)  was.  His  own  definition  of  "  the 
Gospel  "  implies  that  he  meant  by  the  term  a  certain  ab- 
stract, philosophical  conception  rather  than  such  concrete 
realities  as  our  records  ;  for  he  says  that  it  is  "  the  knowl- 
edge (Gnosis)  of  supermundane  things."  f 

The  statement  of  Hippolytus  that  the  followers  of 
Basilides  regarded  "  all  things  concerning  Christ  to  have 
happened  as  they  are  recorded  in  the  Gospel,"  has,  of 
course,  no  necessary  reference  to  Basilides  himself,  and 
even  if  it  had  it  would  not  establish  his  recognition  of  our 
Gospels  as  canonical.  Papias  undoubtedly  believed  as 
much,  yet  he  does  not  appear  to  have  known  our  present 
Gospels,  and  such  as  he  did  know  he  subordinated  to 
tradition.  Indeed,  what  Irenaeus  says  of  the  Gnostics  of 
his  time  may  fairly  be  supposed  to  apply  to  Basilides: 
"They  boast  that  they  have  more  Gospels  than  there 
are.";):  Again,  the  same  writer  charges  that  when  they  are 
refuted  from  the  Scriptures,  they  retort  by  accusing  the 
Scriptures  themselves  as  without  authority.§  Tertullian 
also  says  that  the  heretics  of  his  time  did  not  receive 
certain  Scriptures.||  The  actual  state  of  the  case  is 
doubtless  well  summed  by  Reuss :  "  The  exegesis  of  the 
Gnostics  attached  itself  above  all  to  the  words  of  Christ  in 
order  to  bring  out  of  them  their  own  dogmas.  But  these 

*  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  7. 

f  77  T&V  vTtspxotf/Liuar  yv&Gi'-,,  Hippol.  Refut.  omn.  Haeres.  vii.  37. 
\  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.  II,  9. 
§  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.  2,  2. 

||  Praescr.  Haeres.  17  ;  Credner,  Gesch.  des  neutest.  Kanon,  p.  24. 
6 


82  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

words  either  circulated  still  in  a  purely  traditional  form  or 
were  embodied  in  various  writings  more  or  less  different, 
more  or  less  circulated,  but  not  yet  sorted  by  an  ecclesi- 
astical authority,  and  all  serving  equally  according  to  the 
occasion  the  use  which  one  wished  to  make  of  them. 
Now  nothing  was  easier  than  to  form  new  collections  of 
this  sort,  either  by  making  extracts  from  those  that  one  had 
at  handler  by  combining  several  books,  or  by  composing 
one's  self  accounts  under  the  direct  influence  of  the  pre- 
occupations of  the  system.  There  are  famous  examples 
of  each  one  of  these  methods."*  But  whatever  writings 
Basilides  may  have  employed  as  sources  of  information 
for  the  support  of  his  system,  he  did  not,  it  appears,  con- 
fine himself  to  them,  but  appealed  to  the  authority  of  a 
certain  Glaucius  whom  he  declared  to  have  been  an  inter- 
preter of  Peter,  and  made  use  of  certain  traditions  of 
Matthias  who,  it  was  claimed,  had  had  private  intercourse 
with  Jesus,  f 

Valentinus,  the  head  of  a  Gnostic  sect,  who  lived  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  appealed  directly  to 
one  Theodas,  a  reputed  follower  of  Paul.  \  Of  direct 
appeal  to  the  Gospels  there  is  no  example  in  the  few 
fragments  of  his  writings  which  have  been  preserved  in 
quotations  from  homilies  and  letters.  The  charge  is  pre- 
ferred against  him  of  introducing  alterations,  corrections, 
etc.,  in  some  of  the  Epistles.  Origen  says  that  his  follow- 
ers acted  with  greater  boldness,  and  altered  the  form  of 
the  Gospel.  Irenaeus  charges  this  sect  with  bringing  for- 
ward their  own  compositions  as  Gospels  and  entitling  one 
of  their  books  "  The  Gospel  of  Truth,"  "  though  it  ac- 

*  Histoire  du  Canon,  p.  70.  f  Hippol.  Haeres.  vii.  8. 

\  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vii.  17,  106. 


THE    CANON.  83 

corded  in  no  respect  with  the  Gospels  of  the  apostles." 
A  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  the  use  of  our 
Gospels  by  the  later  followers  of  Valentinus  and  other 
Gnostic  leaders,  who  were  nearer  to  those  who  wrote  in 
refutation  of  this  heresy,  and  that  of  the  leaders  and 
founders  themselves.  It  is  not  always  clear  to  which  these 
writers  refer.  The  charge  of  Irenaeus,  however,  is  signifi- 
cant, that  they  (the  Gnostics)  neither  consent  to  Scripture 
nor  to  tradition.  All  the  evidence  goes  to  show  that  the 
Gnostics,  wishing  to  be  regarded  as  Christians  and  to 
make  their  speculations  pass  for  the  only  true  Christian 
ideas,  followed  the  custom  of  the  orthodox  believers  in 
appealing  to  the  current  writings  and  traditions  of  the 
time  to  substantiate  their  tenets.  But,  instead  of  subordi- 
nating their  opinions  to  the  Gospels  as  authoritative,  they 
exercised  the  greatest  freedom  in  dealing  with  the  docu- 
ments, whatever  they  may  have  been,  accepting  such 
parts  of  them  as  furnished  support  for  their  speculations 
and  rejecting  the  rest.  The  preceding  investigations 
having  shown  that  the  orthodox  Christians  themselves 
had  no  canon,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  down  to 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  it  is  futile  to  argue 
from  such  a  sort  of  recognition  as  the  heretics  gave  to  the 
current  literature  to  the  canonicity  of  any  part  of  it.* 
When  we  consider,  furthermore,  that  no  one  claims  that 
either  Basilides  or  Valentinus  quoted  any  one  of  our 

*  Valentinus,  however,  might  have  used  all  these  writings  [the  Gospels] 
for  his  purposes  without  therefore  according  to  them  canonical  authority. 
For  he  is  reported  not  only  arbitrarily  to  have  altered  the  canonical  Gospels, 
but  to  have  used  others  besides  these,  and  to  have  put  one  of  them  at  the 
head  of  all  ;  for  such  a  rank  is  signified  by  the  name  which  it  bore,  evangeli- 
um  veritatis,  by  which  only  a  purified  Gospel  can  be  meant.  But  if  there 
was  need  of  such  a  Gospel,  the  rest  could  not  (in  his  opinion)  have  con- 
tained the  pure,  true  Gospel.  Credner,  Beitrage,  i.  p.  38  f. 


84  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Gospels  by  name,  it  is  evident  how  little  significance  is  to 
be  attached  to  their  use  of  a  few  passages  which  are  very 
similar  to  some  in  these  records,  and  to  Holtzmann's 
opinion  that  the  latter  argued  from  the  Gospel,  according 
to  Matthew.*  In  view  of  the  considerable  number  of 
Gospels  which  were  in  circulation  in  the  second  century, 
the  use  by  these  writers  of  isolated  passages  which  are 
found  in  our  Gospels,  without  reference  to  the  particular 
source,  does  not  go  far  towards  establishing  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  records. 

Credner  has  well  stated  the  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions  of  this  period  :  "  The  early  Church  saw  come  forth 
from  its  bosom  a  multitude  of  the  most  contradictory  as- 
severations and  systems  which  were  more  or  less  foreign 
to  the  true  sense  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  were 
afterwards  rejected  and  condemned  by  the  orthodox  as 
heretical.  It  was  not  intentional  hostility  to  Christianity 
by  which  these  so-called  heretics  were  animated.  It  was 
rather,  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  majority,  an  honest 
seeking  for  truth,  and  the  inborn  striving  of  the  thought- 
ful and  intelligent  man  to  bring  an  earlier  mode  of 
thought,  in  which  he  had  been  reared  and  perhaps  grown 
gray,  into  accord  with  a  new  and,  to  him,  acceptable 
doctrine.  But  these  strivings  would  certainly  have  turned 
out  quite  differently,  certainly  there  would  have  been  no 
Cerinthians,  Valentinians,  Marcionites,  and  other  sects  of 
heretics  of  whatever  name,  at  least  not  in  the  form  which 
they  took  on,  had  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  been  then 
laid  down  in  divinely  attested  writings,  and  not  in  mere 
tradition.  This  assertion  will  be  established  if  we  are 
able  to  show  that  all  these  heretics  sought  to  confirm 
their  doctrines  not  by  an  appeal  to  certain  writings  au- 

*  Einleit.  p.  136. 


THE   CANON.  85 

thorized  in  the  Church,  but  to  the  oral  and  written  tra- 
dition, just  as  we  have  found  to  be  the  case  with  the 
orthodox  Christians."  *  The  establishment  of  this  fact 
maybe  regarded  as  one  of  the  assured  results  of  historical 
investigation  into  the  condition  of  the  Church  in  the 
second  century,  to  which  no  one  has  perhaps  contributed 
more  than  the  learned  and  candid  scholar  from  whom  the 
preceding  quotation  is  taken. 

7. THE  CANON  OF  MARCION  AND  TATIAN*S  DIATESSARON. 

About  the  middle  of  the  second  century  there  appeared 
in  Rome  the  son  of  a  Bishop  of  Sinope  in  Pontus,  who, 
although  he  called  himself  a  Christian,  and  aspired  to  the 
first  place  in  the  Roman  Church,f  was  refused  communion 
there  on  account  of  his  theological  opinions.  This  was 
the  great  Gnostic  heretic,  Marcion,  whose  name  holds  a 
prominent  place  in  the  history  of  the  second  century  as 
that  of  one  of  the  most  illustrious  of  its  ecclesiastical 
leaders.  In  spite  of  all  the  calumniation  and  abuse  which 
his  orthodox  opponents  have  heaped  upon  him,  the  ver- 
dict of  history  declares  him  to  have  been  a  man  of  a 
noble  nature  and  a  pure  life.  An  Asiatic  by  birth  and 
familiar  with  oriental  philosophy,  he  believed  that  Christi- 
anity in  its  purity  was  in  conflict  with  Judaism,  and  that 
the  Hebrew  elements  which  he  found  in  it  ought  to  be 
removed.  He  brought  this  opposition  of  the  two  faiths 
into  relation  with  his  oriental  dualism  by  the  theory  of  a 
just  God  and  a  good  God.  The  former  was  the  creator  of 
the  world  and  the  author  of  the  Old-Testament  revelation. 

*  Beitrage,  i.  p.  36. 

f  Eph.,  Haeres.  xlii.  I,  first  place,  7tpoe8pia,  perhaps  a  seat  in  the  col- 
lege of  elders,  rtpsdfivrepoi,  Westcott,  Canon.  Some  think,  however, 
that  he  aimed  at  nothing  less  than  the  bishopric. 


86  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  good  God,  the  God  of  love,  had 
remained  unknown  until  the  appearance  of  Christ,  in 
whom,  out  of  sympathy  with  man,  He  had  revealed  Him- 
self, and  attacked  the  kingdom  of  the  just  God,  so  that 
the  doctrines  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments  were 
placed  in  the  relation  of  opposites  to  each  other.  Be- 
lieving that  the  object  of  Christianity  was  the  abolition 
of  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament,  Marcion  declared 
war  against  Hebraism  and  Judaism.  Looking  through 
the  writings  which  set  forth  the  current  Christian  tenets, 
he  discovered  in  them,  as  in  the  teachings  of  the 
apostles,  certain  antithetic  tendencies,  some  being  freer 
and  more  independent,  and  others  more  limited  and 
inclined  to  Judaism.  Now,  since  both  these  tenden- 
cies, attachment  to  Judaism  and  separation  from  it,  could 
not,  in  his  opinion,  represent  the  teachings  of  Christ,  he 
was  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  twelve  apostles,  hav- 
ing come  out  of  Judaism  and  being  prejudiced  in  its 
favor,  had  not  received  and  handed  down  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  without  an  admixture  of  Jewish  doctrines, * 
an  opinion  which  he  believed  he  could  defend  out 
of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  He  was  led  by  this 
opinion  to  the  bold  undertaking  to  restore  the  original 
unity  and  purity  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  in  pursuance 
of  this  end  he  selected  out  of  the  existing  Christian  litera- 
ture those  writings  which  had  remained  least  affected  by 
Judaism,  taking  considerable  liberty  with  them  in  the  way 
of  change  and  excision,  f  According  to  him,  Paul  was 
the  only  genuine  apostle,  and  he  accordingly  accepted 
Pauline  writings  alone.  Of  these  he  acknowledged  as  the 

*  Apostolos  adhuc  quse  sunt  Judaeorum  sentientes  annunciasse  evangelium, 
Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.  12,  12. 
f  Credner,  Beitrage,  i.  p.  41  f. 


THE   CANON.  8/ 

sources  of  his  Christian  doctrine  ten  Epistles,  which  he 
placed  in  his  collection  in  the  following  order  :  Galatians, 
the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  Romans,  the  two  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  Ephesians  (which,  according  to  Tertullian,  he 
entitled  "  to  the  Laodiceans),  ""  Colossians,  Philippians, 
and  Philemon.  One  Gospel  alone  he  recognized  which 
no  longer  exists  in  precisely  the  form  in  which  he  used  it, 
and  concerning  which  our  only  information  is  derived 
from  the  writings  of  those  who  undertook  to  controvert 
his  teachings.  He  divided  his  collection  into  two  parts, 
"  The  Gospel  "  and  "  The  Apostolicon." 

The  precise  character  of  Marcion's  Gospel  is  one  of  the 
problems  of  history  and  criticism  which  do  not  admit  of 
satisfactory  solution.  The  question  has  been  the  subject 
of  learned  controversy  since  the  latter  part  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  and  no  general  agreement  has  yet  been 
reached  among  those  best  qualified  to  form  a  judgment 
upon  it.  On  the  authority  of  Tertullian  it  was  generally 
believed,  until  the  time  of  Semler,  about  1/83,  that 
Marcion's  Gospel  was  a  mutilated  copy  of  Luke's.  Sem- 
ler, after  making  a  careful  study  of  the  problem,  con- 
cluded that  it  was  derived  from  an  earlier  one,  of  which 
Luke's  was  likewise  a  version.  Griesbach  also  denied  the 
relation  usually  supposed  to  exist  between  the  two  Gospels. 
Eichhorn,  repudiating  Tertullian's  statement  as  untrust- 
worthy, maintained  that  Marcion's  Gospel  was  the  more 
original,  and  one  of  the  sources  of  Luke.  Berthold  and 
Schleiermacher  held  that  it  was  not  a  mutilated  copy 
of  Luke,f  but  an  independent  original  Gospel.  Gieseler 

*  Adv.  Marc.  v.  n,  17. 

f  Schleiermacher,  however,  expressed  himself  cautiously:  "Perhaps 
Marcion's  Gospel  was  an  earlier  edition  of  Luke's,  in  which  parts  of  the 
beginning  and  end  were  wanting,"  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  65. 


88  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

adopted  this  view,  but  afterwards,  influenced  by  Harm's 
criticism,  abandoned  it  in  favor  of  the  traditional  one 
which  was  defended  or  acquiesced  in  by  Neander,  De 
Wette,  Olshausen,  Credner,  Bunsen,  Ewald,  and  Bleek,  to 
mention  only  the  most  prominent  critics.  Much  more 
extended  and  thorough  studies  of  the  subject  were  made 
by  Ritschl,  Baur,  Kostlin,  Volkmar,  and  Hilgenfeld,  who, 
by  reconstructing  as  far  as  possible  the  text  of  Marcion's 
Gospel  from  the  statements  of  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius, 
appear  to  have  gone  to  the  limits  of  an  exhaustive  analy- 
sis of  the  data.  The  preponderance  of  opinion  in  this 
group  of  brilliant  critics  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
traditional  view  and  against  the  theory  of  the  originality 
and  independence  of  the  Gospel  of  Marcion.  Schwegler, 
however,  holds  that  its  relation  to  our  Luke  is  similar 
to  that  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  to  our 
Matthew.  He  thinks  it  far  more  probable  that  the  Mar- 
cionite  Gospel  was  one  of  those  source-documents  of 
Luke's  Gospel,  mentioned  in  the  prologue  of  that  record, 
an  old,  even  if  somewhat  fragmentary,  record  of  evangelic 
discourses  and  facts  which  originated  in  Pauline  circles, 
than  that  it  was  a  falsified  and  mutilated  Luke.* 

The  limits  which  this  work  imposes  do  not  admit  of 
entering  upon  a  discussion  in  detail  of  the  question 
whether  Marcion's  Gospel  was  Luke's,  with  alterations 
and  excisions,  or  some  other.  Indeed,  so  far  as  the 
matter  of  the  canon  is  concerned,  the  solution  of  this 
problem  is  not  of  vital  importance.  "  The  task  before  us  is 
to  determine  the  estimation  in  which  the  Gospels  were 
held,  and  how  they  were  regarded  and  treated  in  Mar- 
cion's time.  His  procedure  furnishes  the  desired  infor- 
mation on  this  point,  whether  he  adapted  to  his  purpose 

*  Das  nachapost.  Zeitalter,  i.  p.  261. 


THE   CANON.  89 

our  third  Gospel  or  an  independent  work,  which  may 
or  may  not  have  been  one  of  Luke's  sources.  Only  two 
or  three  important  and  conclusive  facts  need  to  be  con- 
sidered. Marcion  does  not  ascribe  his  Gospel  to  any 
author,  at  least  we  have  no  information  from  his  oppo- 
nents that  he  did  so.  He  called  it  simply  "  The  Gospel " 
(TO  svayyk\iov\  He  admitted  that  he  changed  the 
original  text,  and  gave  reasons  for  doing  so.*  Now  the 
taking  of  such  liberties  with  a  writing  is  irreconcilable 
with  a  belief  in  its  infallibility  or  inspiration.  While 
it  must  be  admitted  that  his  procedure  was  bold  and 
violent,  and  that  such  a  treatment  of  the  evangelic  records 
would  have  wrought  great  harm  if  extensively  practised, 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  just  judgment  on 
his  motives  and  actions  in  the  case  can  only  be  formed 
from  the  point  of  view  of  his  age.  He  would,  as  Credner 
very  justly  remarks,  have  deserved  the  severe  censure  and 
condemnation  which  have  been  pronounced  upon  him,  if, 
proceeding  as  he  did,  he  had  either  attributed  divine 
authority  or  inspiration  to  the  Gospels  which  he  pro- 
nounced defective,  or  had  claimed  the  same  for  his 
own  ostensibly  purified  Gospel.f  But  he  lived  at  a  time 
when,  as  has  been  shown,  no  trace  can  be  found  of  a 
belief  in  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  writings  afterwards 
united  in  the  New  Testament  and  regarded  as  canonical. 
Accordingly,  his  treatment  of  a  Gospel,  his  reception  of 
some  Epistles  and  exclusion  of  others  were  in  accordance 
with  the  opinions  and  practices  of  his  age,  in  which  Chris- 
tians were  accustomed  to  rely  upon  oral  tradition  and  to 
quote  writings,  since  rejected  as  uncanonical,  as  if  they 
were  as  authoritative  as  those  finally  accepted.  It  has 

*  Tertull.,  De  Came  Christi,  c.  2. 
f  Credner,  Beitrage,  i.  p.  44. 


90  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

been  remarked  that  the  general  laxity  of  belief  and  usage 
regarding  canonicity  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  there 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  an  objection  raised  against 
Marcion's  procedure  in  his  own  time.  It  was  unfortunate 
for  his  fame  that  he  took  a  Gospel  which  was  afterwards 
received  as  canonical,  and  treated  it  with  so  much  freedom. 
But  had  such  an  opinion  of  its  sanctity  as  could  alone  jus- 
tify a  condemnation  of  him  existed  in  his  time,  it  is  cer- 
tainly unaccountable  that  his  contemporary,  Justin  Martyr, 
who  frequently  brings  charges  against  the  Marcionites, 
did  not  raise  his  voice  against  such  a  profanation  of  sacred 
documents.* 

The  question  whether  or  no  Marcion  knew  and  rejected 
the  fourth  Gospel  does  not,  from  the  testimony  accessible, 
admit  of  so  decisive  an  answer  as  Tischendorf  gives  it. 
Tertullian,  writing  at  a  time  when  the  four  Gospels  were 
recognized,  or  about  half  a  century  later  than  Marcion's 
time,  may  very  naturally  have  believed  that  any  Gospel 
not  acknowledged  by  the  great  heretic  was  known  and 
rejected.  But  the  fourth  Gospel  offers  so  many  points  of 
contact  with  the  doctrines  of  Marcion  that  it  is  extremely 
improbable  that  if  he  had  been  acquainted  with  it  he 
would  have  found  it  objectionable.  It  is  even  very  likely 
that  he  would  have  preferred  it  to  that  of  Luke.f  But 
however  this  may  be,  it  is  particularly  worthy  of  note 
that  in  the  Evangelicon  and  Apostolicon  of  Marcion  an 
important  step  is  seen  towards  the  formation  of  a  canon 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  could  not  have  been  with- 
out influence  in  orthodox  Christian  circles,  where  the 
exigencies  of  the  contest  with  the  Gnostics  must  have 

*  Credner,  Beitrage,  i.  p.  44. 

f  Tertull.,  De  Came  Christi,  2,  3,  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.  p.  50  ;  Scholten, 
Die  altesten  Zeugnisse,  p.  76. 


THE   CANON.  91 

caused  to  be  keenly  felt  the  need  of  an  authoritative  list 
of  writings,  both  for  public  reading  in  the  churches  and 
for  appeal  in  discussion.* 

Prominent  among  the  heretics  of  the  second  century 
was  Tatian,  an  Assyrian  by  birth,  who  in  Rome  was  a 
disciple  of  Justin  Martyr.  After  the  death  of  his  teacher 
in  the  persecution  excited  by  Crescens,  he  left  Rome, 
and  joined  the  ascetic  sect  of  the  Encratites,  of  whose 
doctrines  of  abstinence  he  became  a  leading  advocate. 
Of  his  writings  there  remains  only  an  Oration  to  the 
Greeks,  which  was  probably  written  about  170.  The 
claim  that  in  this  writing  there  are  any  quotations  from 
our  Gospels  rests  on  very  questionable  grounds,  and  is 
hardly  worthy  of  consideration.f  There  are  traces  in  it, 
however,  of  the  first,  third,  and  fourth  Gospels,^:  but 
without  ascription  of  them  to  their  reputed  authors. 
His  chief  importance  as  a  witness  for  the  Gospels  rests 
on  a  work  ascribed  to  him,  called  Diatessaron,  §  or  "  By 
Four,"  which  is  assumed  to  have  been  a  harmony  of  our 
four  Gospels.  ||  Critics  are  by  no  means  unanimous 
regarding  the  character  of  this  work,  some  holding  that 
it  was  a  harmony  of  our  canonical  Gospels,  some  that  it 
was  composed  of  our  first  three  Gospels  and  that  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews,  and  others  that  it  did  not  contain 
any  of  our  Gospels,  but  was  a  harmony  of  that  according 

*  This  is  generally  maintained  by  the  critical  school,  Holtzmann,  Einleit. 

P-  139- 

\  Even  Tischendorf  does  not  make  this  claim. 

\  This  is  contested,  of  course,  by  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion, 
but  conceded  by  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  129,  and  Scholten,  Aelteste 
Zeug.  p.  93. 

§  did  TE6(5dpcov. 

I  Eusebius,  tivvdcpstd  rtS  nal  tivaycay?)  rear 


92  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

to  the  Hebrews  and  three  others  unknown,  or  was  simply 
the  former  alone,  since  Epiphanius  says  that  it  was  called 
by  that  name  in  his  time.  The  earliest  mention  of  it  is 
made  by  Eusebius,  who  writes  of  it  as  one  ignorant  of 
its  character  in  detail.  He  says :  "  Tatian  *  *  *  put 
together  a  certain  amalgamation  and  collection  of  the 
Gospels,  I  know  not  how,*  and  named  it  the  Diatessaron, 
which  even  now  is  current  with  some."  The  testimony 
of  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Gyros,  about  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century,  is  important  for  the  relation  of  this  work  to 
the  history  of  the  canon.  He,  it  seems,  had  seen  it,  and 
he  says  of  it :  "  Tatian  also  composed  the  Gospel  which 
is  called  the  Diatessaron,  excising  the  genealogies  and  all 
the  other  parts  which  declare  that  the  Lord  was  born  of 
the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh.  This  was  used 
not  only  by  those  of  his  own  sect,  but  also  by  those  who 
held  the  apostolic  doctrines,  who  did  not  perceive  the 
evil  of  the  composition,  but  made  use  of  the  book  in 
simplicity  on  account  of  its  conciseness.  I  myself  found 
upwards  of  two  hundred  of  such  books  held  in  honor 
among  your  churches,  and  collecting  them  all  together,  I 
had  them  put  aside,  and  introduced  the  Gospels  of  the 
four  evangelists."  f  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Theodoret 
does  not  tell  of  what  writings  Tatian  "  composed  "  his 
Diatessaron,  and  no  inference  can  fairly  be  drawn  in  favor 
of  any  particular  writings  of  the  many  in  circulation  in 
the  early  Church.  It  is  not  even  certain  that  the  name 
Diatessaron  was  always  attached  to  the  work,  for  Victor 
of  Capua  says  that  it  was  called  Diapente  (diet  nevre), 
"  By  Five."  Theodoret  does  not  assure  us  that  it  was 
really  composed  of  four  Gospels,  but  only  that  it  was 
"  called  "  Diatessaron.  The  nature  and  sources  of  the 

*  OVK  oida  o7tK)$  tivvQsiS.  f  Haer.  fab.  i.  20. 


THE   CANON. 


93 


work  are,  in  fact,  too  little  known  to  warrant  any  positive 
assertion  concerning  it,  and  Donaldson  has  well  said  that 
we  know  no  more  of  it  than  Eusebius  who  never  saw  it 
knew.  The  absence  of  the  genealogies,  which  Theodoret 
accounts  for  by  excision,  has  been  explained  by  the 
hypothesis  that  the  Diatessaron  was  composed  either 
from  Justin's  Memoirs  or  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  neither  of  which  contained  the  genealogical 
matter  and  the  reference  to  the  Son  of  David.  But  even 
if  it  be  granted  that  this  writing  was  a  harmony  of  our 
four  Gospels,  the  omission  in  a  dogmatic  interest  of 
certain  parts  of  some  of  them  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
theory  that  Tatian  regarded  these  books  as  authoritative. 
Historical  documents  without  especial  sanction  he  might, 
indeed,  treat  in  this  way,  but  records  believed  by  him  to 
be  inspired  and  infallible  he  would  rather  have  undertaken 
to  bring  into  accord  with  his  theories  by  means  of  a 
violent  exegesis  after  the  manner  of  all  dogmatists  since 
his  time.  All  the  evidence,  then,  goes  to  show  that,  as 
we  cannot  properly  apply  the  term  "  canon  "  to  Marcion's 
collection  of  a  mutilated  Gospel  and  certain  Epistles,  so 
Tatian  did  not  appear  to  have  any  well-defined  conception 
of  a  Gospel-canon,  as  that  term  came  to  be  understood  in 
the  third  century.  Both  men  were  in  this  respect  in 
accord  with  the  prevalent  conceptions  of  their  times, 
however  widely  their  Gnostic  tenets  may  have  separated 
them  from  the  orthodox  believers  in  general. 

8. DIONYSIUS    OF    CORINTH,   MELITO    OF    SARDIS,  AND 

ATHENAGORAS. 

Dionysius  was  Bishop  of  Corinth  at  the  time  of  Justin 
Martyr's  death,  about  175,  and  was  the  author  of  a  letter 
to  Soter,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  of  several  other  letters.  A 


94  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

few  fragments  of  the  former  are  all  that  remains  of  his 
writings.  Eusebius  relates  that  in  some  of  his  Epistles 
he  gives  expositions  of  holy  Scripture,  *  an  expression  by 
which  the  historian  may  have  intended  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  or  of  the  New.  It  is  important  to  observe 
that  the  words  are  those  of  Eusebius.  In  the  fragments 
of  the  Epistle  to  Soter  there  is  a  complaint  that  certain 
"apostles  of  the  Devil"  had  taken  the  liberty  to  change 
some  of  his  letters  by  additions  and  excisions,  and  the 
writer  adds  that  "  it  is  not  surprising  if  some  have  reck- 
lessly ventured  to  adulterate  the  Scriptures  of  the  Lord, 
when  they  have  corrupted  these  which  are  not  of  so 
much  importance."  These  "Scriptures  of  the  Lord"f 
were  probably  Gospel-narratives,  the  words  being  fre- 
quently employed,  as  Credner  remarks,  in  the  writings 
of  the  time  in  that  sense.  \  The  attempt  of  the  author 
of  Supernatural  Religion  to  show  that  they  designate 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament  is  futile.  §  It  should  be 
considered,  however,  that  no  particular  writings  are  men- 
tioned, and  that  Westcott  is  accordingly  too  hasty  in 
drawing  the  conclusion  from  these  words  that  the  "  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Testament  were  at  this  time  collected,  that 
they  were  distinguished  from  other  books,  that  they  were 
jealously  guarded,"  etc.  [  The  most  that  can  fairly  be 
inferred  from  this  fragment  is  that  a  sharp  line  of  distinc- 
tion is  drawn  between  the  writer's  own  productions  and 
evangelic  writings  in  general  ;  but  there  is  no  intima- 
tion in  it  that  a  canon  of  the  New  Testament  yet  existed 
or  had  been  thought  of.  This  is,  indeed,  the  first  instance 


*  ypaqxav  Qeiaor 
\ypacpai  uvpiaKai,  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  23. 

|  Beitrage,  i.  p.  52.     See  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom,  vi.  2,  vii.  I  ;  Iren.,  Adv. 
Haeres.  ii.  35.  §  Vol.  ii.  3d  ed.  p.  165.  |  The  Canon,  p.  191. 


THE   CANON.  95 

in  the  second  century  of  the  application  of  the  word 
Scriptures  (ypofcpai)  to  the  evangelic  writings;  but  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  not  only  were  many  Gos- 
pels which  have  not  been  received  into  the  canon  freely 
quoted  at  about  this  time  and,  indeed,  as  will  be  shown 
hereafter,  much  later,  but  other  apocryphal  writings  were 
regularly  read  in  the  churches,  and  some  of  these  almost 
attained  canonical  rank,  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  having 
been  quoted  as  "  inspired "  by  Irenaeus.*  Dionysius 
informs  the  Romans  that  the  Epistles  of  Clement  and 
Soter,  their  bishops,  were  read  in  his  church ;  and  since 
the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  this  church  can  hardly  have 
been  neglected  in  the  religious  services,  the  inference  is 
very  natural  that  no  exclusively  sacred  or  canonical  char- 
acter was  accorded  to  the  latter.  It  is  worthy  of  note 
that  with  all  the  accounts  of  the  reading  of  Epistles  in 
the  churches  there  is  no  mention  of  this  use  of  the 
Gospels. 

Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  who  lived  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century,  has  been  quoted  as  furnishing 
evidence  for  the  canon.  In  a  fragment  preserved  by 
Eusebius  he  says,  that  having  been  requested  by  a  cer- 
tain "  brother  Onesimus "  to  furnish  an  account  of  the 
"  Old  books,  how  many  they  are,  and  what  is  their  order," 
he  undertook  a  journey  to  the  East,  and  having  obtained 
the  desired  information,  he  sends  a  list  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  then  he  adds  the  names  of  the 
books,  omitting,  however,  that  of  Esther,  f  Now  the 
strange  inference  has  been  drawn  that  the  mention  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  implies  the  existence  of  a 

*  Adv.  Haeres.  iv.  20,  2. 

\  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  26. 


96  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

written  canonical  New  Testament.  But  in  making  this 
assertion  it  seems  to  have  been  forgotten  that  the  distinc- 
tion of  an  Old  and  New  Covenant  by  no  means  implies 
the  existence  of  a  canon  of  the  latter,  since  it  appears  in 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  itself.  In  the  ac- 
count of  the  last  supper  Jesus  is  represented  as  having 
used  the  terms,  "  blood  of  the  New  Testament  "  and 
"this  is  the  cup  of  the  New  Testament";  and  Paul 
speaks  of  the  Old  Testament  in  contrasting  the  old  and 
new  dispensations.  Yet  no  one  will  claim  that  a  canoni- 
cal collection  of  writings  could  have  been  implied  in  these 
words.  But  if  it  be  granted  that  a  New-Testament  canon 
is  implied  in  this  fragment,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
what  writings  among  the  many  Gospels  and  Epistles  in 
existence  and  use  in  his  time  Melito  would  have  included 
in  his  collection.  The  zeal  of  those  who  draw  from  such 
premises  the  conclusion  that  he  knew  anything  of  a  New- 
Testament  canon  surpasses  their  discretion.* 

Of  Athenagoras  no  mention  is  made  by  Eusebius  or 
Jerome.  His  principal  work  was  an  Apology,  or  Em- 
bassy, concerning  Christians,  addressed  to  certain  Roman 
Emperors,  f  and  written  probably  about  176.  Westcott 
claims  that  in  this  writing  there  are  "  certain  though  tacit 
references  to  Matthew  and  John,"  and  Tischendorf  finds 
"several  quotations  from  Matthew  and  Luke."  An  ex- 
amination of  the  passages  in  question  shows  a  resem- 
blance to  parallels  in  one  or  two  of  the  synoptical  Gospels, 
but  does  not  establish  "  quotations,"  and  as  to  "  refer- 
ences," there  are  none  in  the  way  of  a  mention  of  the 

*  Westcott,  Canon,  p.   221.       On  the  contrary,   Reuss,   Hist,  du    Can. 

P-  43- 

f  Ttpetifisia  Ttzpl  %pi6Tiav dor '. 


THE   CANON.  97 

sources.  Not  even  is  the  name  of  Christ  introduced  as 
the  speaker,  but  the  vague  "  he  says  "  *  precedes  the 
passages.  There  is  also  one  apocryphal  saying  ascribed 
to  the  "  Logos  "  to  the  effect  that  if  any  one  kiss  a  sec- 
ond time  because  it  gives  him  gratification  [he  sins],  and 
the  writer  adds  that  the  kiss,  or  salutation,  must  be  used 
with  care,  as,  if  it  be  defiled  even  a  little  by  thought,  it 
excludes  us  from  life  eternal.  The  conclusion  of  Dr. 
Donaldson  regarding  Athenagoras  appears  to  be  drawn 
from  a  correct  apprehension  of  the  facts  :  "  Athenagoras 
makes  no  allusion  to  the  inspiration  of  any  of  the  New- 
Testament  writers.  He  does  not  mention  one  of  them 
by  name,  and  one  cannot  be  sure  that  he  quotes  from 
any  except  Paul.  All  the  passages  taken  from  the  Gos- 
pels are  parts  of  our  Lord's  discourses,  and  may  have 
come  down  to  Athenagoras  by  tradition.  "f  It  is  evident 
that  he  cannot  fairly  be  quoted  as  teaching  that  our  four 
Gospels  were  recognized  in  his  time  as  an  exclusive 
authority,  as  genuine  and  canonical. 

9.  -  THEOPHILUS    OF    ANTIOCH  AND    THE  CANON  OF    MURATORI. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  was  a  heathen  by  birth,  and,  ac- 
cording to  Eusebius,  the  sixth  Bishop  of  Antioch  in  the 
time  of  Marcus  Aurelius.  His  three  books  to  Autolycus, 
written  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  are  de- 
voted to  convincing  a  learned  heathen  of  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion,  and  are  preserved  entire.^  He  quotes 
a  passage  contained  in  Matthew  as  of  "  the  evangelic 
voice,"  and  is  the  first  writer  in  whom  is  found  an  ascrip- 
tion of  the  fourth  Gospel  to  John,  whom  he  designates  as 


f  Hist.  Christ.  Doct.,  etc.  iii.  p.  172. 
\  Otto,  Corpus  Apologet.  vol.  v. 
7 


98  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

one  of  those  who  were  "  vessels  of  the  Spirit,"  *  quoting 
from  the  prologue  to  this  Gospel.  It  is  to  be  noted,  how- 
ever, that  he  makes  a  distinction  between  "  the  holy 
word  "  in  general  f  and  "the  evangelic  voice.";]:  But  he 
places  all  "  vessels  of  the  Spirit  "  on  an  equality  with  the 
holy  Scriptures,  thus  probably  according  to  the  evan- 
gelists canonical  rank  and  authority.§  "  This,"  he  says, 
"  the  holy  Scriptures  teach  us,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the 
Spirit,  one  of  whom,  John,  says,  *  In  the  beginning  was 
the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God/  "  He  even  ac- 
cords to  the  announcement  in  Matt.  v.  18  superiority  to 
the  Old  Testament.]  According  to  Jerome  he  was  the 
author  of  a  commentary  on  the  four  Gospels.^ 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  Muratori 
discovered  in  the  Ambrosian  library  at  Milan  a  manu- 
script of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century  which  has  been  the 
subject  of  much  investigation  and  discussion  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  history  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  writing  is  anonymous,  and  is  defective  and  mutilated 
both  at  the  beginning  and  the  end.  It  appears  to  have 
been  originally  a  list  of  the  sacred  books  accepted  by  the 
Roman  Church,  although  the  first  two  canonical  Gospels 
are  wanting  at  the  beginning,  and  is  the  oldest  list  of  the 
kind  that  is  known,  since  it  claims  to  have  been  written 
by  a  contemporary  of  the  Roman  Bishop  Pius,  and  men- 
tions the  writing  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermasas  recent  and 


*  Ttvevjuarotpopoi.        f  6  ayioS  TtoyoS. 

§  The  failure  of  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  to  acknowledge  this 
fact  is  by  no  means  an  indication  of  fairness. 

I  Ad  Autol.  iii.  13. 

^[  Quatuor  evangelistarum  in  unum  opus  dicta  compingens,  Ep.  12  1  ad 
Algasiam. 


THE   CANON,  99 

the  author  of  it  as  a  brother  of  the  Bishop.*  Great  urh 
certainty  exists  as  to  the  date  of  this  fragment,  the  epis- 
copate of  Pius  being  variously  given  from  127  to  157,  and 
the  composition  of  the  writing  from  160  to  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century.f  The  character  of  the  writing  is 
also  in  dispute,  Credner  maintaining  that  it  is  merely  a 
list  of  the  books  accepted  and  not  a  fragment  of  a  larger 
work,  \  while  Westcott  regards  it  as  having  formed  part 
of  an  apocalyptic  work,  perhaps  a  dialogue  with  some 
heretic,  unless  it  is  composed  of  detached  pieces  of  a 
considerable  composition.  There  is  also  uncertainty  as  to 
the  language  in  which  it  was  originally  written.  The 
Latin  in  which  it  was  found,  a  sort  of  barbaric  or  rustic 
dialect,  is  thought  by  some  to  be  a  clumsy  translation 
from  Greek,§  by  others  as  indicative  of  a  North-African 
origin.||  The  authorship  is  a  matter  of  pure  conjecture. 
Some  assign  it  to  a  writer  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
others  doubt  its  authenticity  altogether.  Credner,  whom 
Westcott  pronounces  "a  most  impartial  judge,"  regards 
it  as  a  genuine  list  of  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century. 
This  point  may  be  regarded  as  settled  by  the  preponder- 
ance of  critical  judgment,^  although  some  of  the  questions 
just  mentioned  do  not  admit  of  a  satisfactory  settlement. 

*  Pastorem  vero  nuperrime  temporibus  nostris  in  urbe  Roma  Hernia  con- 
scripsit  sedente  cathedra  urbis  Romae  ecclesise  Pio  episcopo  fratre  ejus. 

f  Tischendorf,  160-170  ;  Westcott  and  Wieseler,  about  170  ;  Credner  and 
Harnack,  170-190  ;  Volkmar,  190-200  ;  Hilgenfeld,  time  of  Irenasus  and 
Tertullian  ;  Keim,  time  of  Tertullian. 

\  Gesch.  d.  neutest.  Canon,  p.  143. 

§  Bunsen,  Tregelles,  Westcott,  Volkmar,  Hilgenfeld  (who  has  restored  the 
Greek  text  in  Kanon  u.  Kritik,  and  Einleitung),  and  others. 

I  Credner,  Hesse,  Reuss,  Bleek,  and  many  others  reject  the  theory  of  a 
translation  from  Greek. 

1  Hilgenfeld :  "  The  conception  of  holy  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
appears  here  already  fully  formed." — Einleit.  p.  99. 


100  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

The  first  words  of  the  fragment  are  the  conclusion  of  a 
sentence,  "  at  which  (quibus)  nevertheless  he  was  present, 
and  he  so  placed  [it]."  This  sentence  is  supposed  to 
relate  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  the  preceding,  which  is 
wholly  absent,  to  that  of  Matthew.  Then  follow  the 
words :  "  Third  book  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke. 
Luke,  that  physician,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  when 
Paul  took  him  with  him  as  studious  of  the  right,  wrote  it 
in  his  name  as  he  deemed  best  ;  nevertheless  he  had  not 
himself  seen  the  Lord  in  the  flesh,  and  followed  him  ac- 
cording as  he  was  able,  beginning  thus  from  the  nativity 
of  John."  The  text  then  proceeds  to  narrate  some 
strange  circumstances  connected  with  the  origin  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  which  it  ascribes  to  John  "  of  the  disciples," 
as  follows  :  "  Being  entreated  by  his  fellow-disciples  and 
his  bishops,  John  said,  '  Fast  with  me  for  three  days  from 
this  time,  and  whatever  shall  be  revealed  to  each  one  of 
us,  let  us  relate  it  to  one  another.'  On  the  same  night  it 
was  revealed  to  Andrew,  one  of  the  apostles,  that  John 
should  relate  all  things  in  his  own  name,  aided  by  the 
revision  of  all,"  etc.  Then  follows  a  mention  of  Acts, 
containing  a  record  by  Luke,  and  of  thirteen  Epistles  of 
Paul,  with  an  arrangement  different  from  that  in  our 
canon  and  with  reasons  assigned  for  the  writing  of  some 
of  them.  An  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  and  one  to  the 
Alexandrians  *  forged  under  the  name  of  Paul  and  several 
others  it  is  declared  cannot  be  received  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  "  for  gall  ought  not  to  be  mixed  with  honey."  f 
The  Book  of  Wisdom  is  said  to  be  received,  written  by 

*  Perhaps  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     Credner,  Kanon,  p.  161. 

f  "  Fel  enim  cum  melle  misceri  non  congruit."  This  play  upon  words  is 
adduced  as  evidence  that  the  writing  was  originally  in  Latin,  an  argument 
which  appears  quite  as  trivial  as  the  trifle  on  which  it  is  founded. 


THE   CANON.  IOI 

friends  of  Solomon  in  his  honor,  also  two  Apocalypses, 
that  of  John  and  that  of  Peter.  The  Epistles  of  Peter, 
one  of  John,  and  that  to  the  Hebrews  are  not  included. 
The  fragment  closes  with  the  mention  of  Hermas  already 
referred  to,  and  the  rejection  of  some  heretical  writings. 
The  conclusion  is  abrupt,  in  the  midst  of  an  unfinished 
sentence. 

The  canon  of  Muratori  admits  of  several  interpretations 
as  related  to  the  history  of  the  New-Testament  canon. 
It  may  be  thought  to  indicate  that  the  progress  towards 
a  real  formation  of  the  canon  was  well  under  way  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century  ;  the  extension  of  the 
canon  of  the  original  apostles  so  as  to  include  the  Pauline 
writings  may  be  interpreted  as  the  last  act  of  the  recon- 
ciliation of  parties ;  *  its  special  reference  to  certain 
heretical  works  may  suggest  that  it  was  the  result  of  the 
Gnostic  and  Montanistic  storms  when  all  non-apostolic 
ballast  was  thrown  out  of  the  ship  of  the  Catholic  Church.f 
In  forming  a  judgment  regarding  it  we  need  to  be  on  our 
guard  against  the  bias  of  a  too  strong  apologetic  interest. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  author  is  wholly  un- 
known ;  that  the  Manuscript  dates  from  the  eighth  or 
ninth  century  ;  that,  as  Donaldson  suggests,  it  may  have 
been  interpolated,  although  the  presumption  of  interpola- 
tion should  not  have  weight  in  the  absence  of  evidence ;  J 
and  finally,  that  in  the  light  of  the  conclusions  of  the 
preceding  investigations,  the  fragment  would  present  a 
strange  anachronism  at  any  time  before  about  the  end  of 
the  second  century.  The  writer  does  not  give  his  own 
opinion  regarding  the  books  mentioned,  but  professedly 

*  Hilgenfeld.  f  Harnack. 

\  Donaldson  thinks  that  the  passage  regarding  the  date  shows  .signs  of 
tampering. — Hist.  Chr.  Doct.  and  Life,  iii.  p.  209. 


1 02  GOSPEL-CRI TICISM. 

the  general  sentiment  of  the  Church.  If  now,  in  writings 
of  undisputed  date  and  genuineness,  we  do  not  find  that 
prior  to  the  end  of  the  second  century  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  are  mentioned  and  massed  after  the 
manner  of  this  fragment  of  uncertain  date  and  unknown 
authorship,  this  fact  ought  certainly  to  have  great  weight 
in  determining  our  judgment  regarding  its  importance  for 
the  history  of  the  canon. 

10. — IREN^EUS  AND  TERTULLIAN. 

Irenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  is  an  important  witness  for 
the  canon,  since  he  speaks  not  alone  for  the  Western  but 
also  for  the  Eastern  Church,  from  which  he  went  to  Gaul. 
In  his  work  against  the  heretics,  written  about  190,  he 
appeals  to  the  most  of  the  New-Testament  writings  as 
holy  Scripture,*  and  puts  them  on  an  equality  with  the 
Old  Testament.  He  holds  the  following  language  respect- 
ing the  Gospels  :  "  Matthew  produced  his  Gospel  among 
the  Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect,  while  Peter  and  Paul 
were  preaching  the  Gospel  and  founding  the  Church  in 
Rome.  After  the  departure  [death]  of  these,  Mark,  the 
disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  also  transmitted  to  us 
in  writing  what  had  been  preached  by  Peter ;  and  Luke, 
the  companion  of  Paul,  committed  to  writing  the  Gospel 
preached  by  the  latter.  Afterwards,  John,  the  disciple  of 
our  Lord,  the  same  that  lay  upon  his  bosom,  also  pub- 
lished the  Gospel  while  he  was  yet  at  Ephesus,  in  Asia,"  f 
The  quaternity  of  the  Gospels  is  distinctly  recognized,  or 
rather  the  four  Gospels  are  referred  to  as  one  fourfold 

*  ypaqxxiy  Bsiat  ypacpaiy  ypacpai  Hvpianaiy  Adv.  Haeres.  ii.  5,  20 ; 
27,  i. 

\  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.  I,  i. 


THE    CANON.  103 

Gospel.*  We  do  not,  however,  find  the  critical  point  of 
view  represented  in  Irenaeus.  Rather  he  appears  uncon- 
scious of  it,  and  writes  as  one  who  merely  records  current 
traditions.  He  is  satisfied  with  reporting  after  Papias 
that  Matthew  wrote  a  Gospel  in  the  dialect  of  the  He- 
brews, but  as  to  the  important  question  of  the  relation  of 
this  to  the  Greek  first  Gospel  he  is  most  uncritically  silent. 
He  proceeds  with  so  little  critical  discrimination  that  he 
does  not  consider,  as  Scholten  remarks,  how  much  the 
recognition  of  a  Hebrew  original  of  Matthew  stood  in  the 
way  of  the  canonical  validity  of  the  Greek  Matthew.f  It 
is  clear  that  the  worth  of  his  testimony  must  be  deter- 
mined by  his  point  of  view,  and  that  so  judged,  he  fur- 
nishes us  nothing  more  than  the  fact  that  in  his  time  our 
four  Gospels  were  uncritically  accepted,  and  ascribed  to 
the  writers  whose  names  were  traditionally  associated  with 
them. 

The  "  fourfold  Gospel  "  appears  to  be  accepted  as  an 
article  of  faith  without  reasons  sought  and  found  in  his- 
tory or  criticism,  but  for  trivial  reasons  quite  foreign  to 
the  subject  :  "  But  neither  can  the  Gospels  be  more  in 
number  than  they  are,  nor  on  the  other  hand  can  they 
be  fewer.  For  as  there  are  four  quarters  of  the  world  in 
which  we  are,  and  four  general  winds,  and  the  Church  is 
disseminated  throughout  all  the  world,  and  the  Gospel  is 
the  pillar  and  prop  of  the  Church  and  the  spirit  of  life,  it 
is  right  that  she  should  have  four  pillars  on  all  sides, 
breathing  out  immortality  and  revivifying  men.  From 
which  it  is  manifest  that  the  Word  *  *  *  has  given  us 
the  Gospel  four-formed,  but  possessed  by  one  spirit  ;  as 
David  also  says  supplicating  his  advent  :  '  Thou  that  sit- 


TO 

f  Die  altesten  Zeugnisse,  p.  114. 


104  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

test  between  the  cherubim,  shine  forth.'  For  the  cheru- 
bim also  are  four-faced,  and  their  faces  are  symbols  of  the 
working  of  the  Son  of  God,  *  *  *  and  the  Gospels 
therefore  are  in  harmony  with  these,  among  which  Christ 
is  seated.  For  the  Gospel  according  to  John  relates  his 
first  effectual  and  glorious  generation  from  the  Father, 
saying :  '  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word.  *  *  *  But 
the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  being,  as  it  were,  of  a 
priestly  (!)  character,  opened  with  Zacharias,  the  priest, 
sacrificing  to  God.  *  *  *  But  Matthew  narrates  his  gen- 
eration as  a  man.  *  *  *  This,  therefore,  is  the  Gospel 
of  his  humanity.  *  *  *  But  Mark  makes  his  beginning 
after  a  prophetic  spirit  coming  down  from  on  high  to 
men.  *  *  *  Such,  therefore,  as  was  the  course  of  the 
Son  of  God,  such  also  is  the  form  of  the  living  creatures 
*  *  *  and  such  is  the  character  of  the  Gospel  \i.  e.,  quad- 
riform].  Therefore,  vain,  ignorant,  and  audacious  are 
those  who  set  aside  the  form  of  the  Gospel,  and  declare 
the  aspect  of  the  Gospels  to  be  either  more  or  less  than 
has  been  said."*  Such  are  the  grounds  which  Irenaeus 
finds  for  believing  in  the  canonicity  of  the  four  Gospels, 
when  cutting  loose  from  tradition  he  trusts  himself  to 
reason.  His  position  was  not,  however,  uncontested  in 
his  own  time,  for  he  admits  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was 
disputed  by  some. 

Irenaeus  marks  the  transition  from  tradition  to  a  New- 
Testament  Scripture.  The  appeal  to  the  latter  predomi- 
nates, while  he  cannot  entirely  break  with  the  former. 
Addressing  a  friend  of  his  youth,  Florinus,  who  had 
adopted  heretical  doctrines,  he  says :  "  These  doctrines 
were  not  delivered  to  thee  by  the  presbyters  before  us, 
those  Avho  were  the  immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles. 

*  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.,  n,  8,  9. 


THE   CANON.  105 

For  I  saw  thee,  when  I  was  yet  a  boy,  in  Lower  Asia  with 
Polycarp.  *  *  *  I  can  tell  the  very  place  where  the 
blessed  Polycarp  was  accustomed  to  sit  and  discourse 
*  his  familiarity  with  those  who  had  seen  the 
Lord ;  how  also  he  used  to  relate  their  discourses  and 
what  he  had  heard  from  them  concerning  the  Lord,  his 
miracles,  his  doctrine ;  all  these  were  told  by  Polycarp 
in  consistency  with  the  holy  Scriptures,  as  he  had  re- 
ceived them  from  the  eye-witnesses  of  the  doctrine  of 
salvation."  *  Although  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  fully 
recognized  by  him  in  the  apostles,  he  by  no  means  re- 
gards the  divine  powers  as  absent  from  his  own  age.  He 
claims  that  in  cases  where  a  whole  church  has  united  in 
fasting  and  prayer  to  bring  a  dead  man  to  life,  "  the  spirit 
has  returned  to  the  reanimated  body,  and  the  man  has 
been  granted  to  the  prayers  of  the  saints."  He  testifies 
also  that  "  some  have  knowledge  of  things  to  come  *  *  * 
others  heal  the  sick  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  even 
the  dead  have  been  raised,  and  continued  with  us  many 
years."  f  That  he  did  not  regard  the  Gospels  as  self- 
authenticating,  but  rather  as  needing  Jhe  support  of 
prophecy,  is  apparent  from  the  words  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  those  just  quoted  :  "  But  if  they  say  that  our 
Lord  also  did  these  things  [miracles]  only  in  appearance, 
we  shall  refer  them  to  the  prophetic  declarations,  and  shall 
show  from  them  that  all  these  things  were  strictly  fore- 
told." We  find  him  in  this  respect  at  the  point  of  view 
of  Justin  Martyr,  f  But  apart  from  this  support  invoked 
from  the  Old  Testament,  he  recognizes  the  Gospels  as  in- 
dependent sources  of  evidence  for  the  doctrines  of  the 

*  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  20. 
f  Ib.  v.  7. 

\  oi<3  k7ti6rsv(5a]iiEVy  eitEidrj  nal  TO  TtpcxprjriKov  rtrevjua  e<pq.    Apol. 
i-  33»  "  whom  we  believed,  since  also  the  prophetic  spirit  said  it." 


1 06  GOSPEL.  CRI TICISM. 

Church  and  decisive  documents  of  Christianity,  which 
possess  the  same  authority  for  those  of  the  New  Covenant 
as  the  Old  Testament  for  the  Jews.*  The  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  placed  upon  the  same  footing,  the  former 
having  come  forth  from  the  prophets,  the  latter  from  the 
apostles,  f  The  apostles,  and  they  alone,  have  handed 
down  true  Christianity  not  only  orally,  but  also  in  writing. 
The  Gospels  they  have  delivered  to  us  in  our  Scriptures 
by  the  will  of  God  to  be  the  foundation  and  column 
of  our  faith.  J  The  Gospels  are  quoted  as  "  Scripture  " 
with  the  same  formula  as  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  Matthew  is  referred  to  as  "  inspired."  §  Mark 
and  Luke  are  brought  into  connection  with  an  apostolic 
source  by  being  associated,  as  previously  shown,  with  Peter 
and  Paul. 

Tertullian,  whose  activity  extended  into  the  second 
decade  of  the  third  century,  may  be  regarded  as  a  witness 
for  the  canon  of  the  African  Church.  His  scientific 
method  renders  him  a  very  valuable  witness,  because 
with  him  the  Scripture-citations  do  not  present  them- 
selves sporadically,  without  order  and  succession,  as  with 
Irenseus  ;  but  when  he  treats  a  special  point  of  morals  or 
of  dogma,  he  aims  to  pass  in  review  the  different  parts  of 
sacred  Scripture  according  to  the  order  of  the  books.  | 
He  gives  his  testimony  as  the  judgment  of  the  Church: 
"  I  say,  then,  that  not  only  among  the  apostolic  churches, 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  152. 

f  Universae  scripturse  et  prophetiae  et  evangelia. 

\  Per  Dei  voluntatem  in  scripturis  nobis  tradiderunt  fundamentum  et  col- 
umnam  fidei  nostrae  futurum. 

§  With  the  formula  of  Scripture  {ypofprf)  he  also  quotes  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 

|  Reuss,  Histoire  du  Canon,  p.  113. 


THE   CANON.  IO/ 

but  among  all  the  churches  which  are  united  with  them  in 
Christian  fellowship  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  we  ear- 
nestly defend,  has  been  maintained  from  its  first  publi- 
cation. And  the  same  authority  of  the  apostolic  churches 
will  uphold  the  other  Gospels  which  we  have  in  due  suc- 
cession through  them  and  according  to  their  usage,  I 
mean  those  of  Matthew  and  John,  although  that  which 
was  published  by  Mark  may  also  be  maintained  to  be 
Peter's,  whose  interpreter  Mark  was  ;  for  the  narrative  of 
Luke  also  is  generally  ascribed  to  Paul,  [since]  it  is  allow- 
able that  that  which  scholars  publish  should  be  regarded  as 
their  masters'  work."  u  These  are,  for  the  most  part,  the 
summary  arguments  which  we  employ  when  we  argue 
about  the  Gospels  against  heretics,  maintaining  both  the 
order  of  time  which  sets  aside  the  later  work  of  forgers, 
and  the  authority  of  churches  which  upholds  the  tradition 
of  the  Apostles,  because  truth  necessarily  precedes  forgery, 
and  proceeds  from  them  to  whom  it  has  been  delivered."* 
Tertullian  employs  "  scriptura  "  and  "  scriptures  "  as 
Irenaeus  employs  ypacprf  and  ypacpai  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  an  inspired  document  in  two  parts,  "  Evangeli- 
cum  "  and  "  Apostolus"  or  "  evangelicce  et  apostolicce  lit  era" 
His  favorite  expression,  however,  for  the  Gospel  is  "  Evan- 
gelicum  Instrumentum"  He  also  uses  the  word  "  Testa- 
mentum,"  and  speaks  of  the  "  totum  instrumentum  utrius- 
que  testamenti"  the  whole  instrument  of  both  testaments, 
as  containing  all  the  ordinances  and  commandments  of 
God.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  he  assumes  a 
critical  attitude  either  towards  the  Gospels  or  the  tradi- 
tions by  which  he  believes  them  authenticated,  but  rests 
his  belief  in  their  genuineness  on  the  tradition  of  the 
churches,  his  maxim  being  that  "  That  has  been  derived 

*  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  5. 


108  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

by  tradition  from  the  apostles  which  has  been  preserved 
inviolate  in  the  churches  of  the  apostles."  We  are  not 
surprised,  accordingly,  at  his  uncritical  acceptance  of  the 
tradition  that  "  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  generally  ascribed 
to  Paul."  The  "  summary  arguments  "  in  the  preceding 
quotation  indicate  his  point  of  view  and  the  limitation  of 
his  inquiries.  Previously  to  his  acceptance  of  Montanism 
he  used  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  which  as  a  Montanist  he 
rejected,  apparently  for  purely  dogmatic  reasons,  as  "  that 
apocryphal  Shepherd  of  fornicators,"  *  while  saying  a  good 
word  for  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas. 

II. THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  CANON. 

In  the  absence  of  means  of  easy  communication 
between  the  different  and  often  widely-separated  Chris- 
tian communities  in  the  second  century,  the  conception 
of  unity  and  a  common  bond  of  faith  and  fellowship 
among  them  must  have  been  slowly  developed.  The 
journeys,  however,  of  prominent  teachers  among  the 
various  little  communities,  and  the  letters  occasionally 
sent  from  the  leader  of  one  of  them  to  the  brethren  in 
another,  must  have  tended  to  generate  the  idea  of  a  whole 
church,  or  a  church  throughout  all ;  that  is,  a  catholic  or 
universal  church.f  The  Gnostic  controversy,  however, 
probably  contributed  more  than  any  other  influence  to 
bring  the  churches  to  a  consciousness  of  historic  unity. 
The  appeal  to  tradition  was  not,  indeed,  unknown  apart 
from  the  exigencies  of  this  controversy,  in  the  midst  of 
which  it  became  the  very  natural  and  general  resort  of 

*  Illo  apocrypho  Pastore  moechorum. 

f  rj  ncxff  o\.ov  tuukritiia.,  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  16.  The  term 
"  catholic  church,"  rf  KaftoXiuri  kKytkrjGia.,  first  appears  in  the  Ignatian 
Epistle  to  the  Smyrneans,  viii. 


THE   CANON.  \  09 

the  defenders  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  times.  It  was 
deemed  the  best  answer  to  the  speculations  of  the 
heretics  to  set  forth  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  primi- 
tive Christianity  as  they  had  been  handed  down  from 
Christ  through  the  apostles  and  their  successors.  The 
creed  was  simple  and  in  few  words.  There  was  one  God, 
who  had  created  the  world  by  His  Son,  the  Word.  This 
latter  had  inspired  the  prophets,  had  finally  become  flesh, 
and  preached  the  new  kingdom  of  God ;  had  been  cruci- 
fied, raised  from  the  dead,  and  was  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  whence  he  sent  forth  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
believers.  At  length  he  would  return  in  glory  in  the 
great  Parousia  to  take  them  to  himself,  and,  punish  the 
unbelievers.  This  was  the  Rule  of  Faith  *  which  had 
been  handed  down,  and  was  deemed  essential  to  the 
integrity  of  the  Church  and  the  soundness  of  the  indi- 
vidual believer.  Above  all  questions  of  mere  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture,  it  appeared  to  the  orthodox  contestants 
to  be  of  supreme  importance  to  determine  the  grounds 
of  the  authority  of  the  writings  themselves  ;  and  it  is 
natural  that  in  proportion  as  the  conception  of  canonicity 
was  formed  and  defined,  the  tendency  in  this  direction 
should  become  more  pronounced  and  positive,  particu- 
larly in  the  exigencies  of  controversy  with  heretics.  To 
minds  untrained  in  critical  investigation,  the  appeal  to 
the  venerated  tradition  of  the  Church  furnished  the  most 
congenial  source  of  confirmation.  What  Christ  had 
taught  and  the  apostles  preached  could  be  determined  in 
no  way  so  well  as  through  the  churches  in  which  the  liv- 
ing word  had  been  preached  and  handed  down.  We 
have  seen  that  to  Papias  "  the  living  voice  "  was  that  of 
individual  teachers.  It  is  not  surprising  that  with  the 

*  Regula  Fidei,  Canon  of  the  Church,  Kavc&v 


1 1 0  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

consolidation  of  the  Church  a  change  should  take  place 
in  the  form  of  the  appeal  to  tradition ;  and  in  Tertullian 
a  change  is,  in  fact,  observable.  For  he  finds  the  standard 
of  right  .knowledge  and  belief,  as  well  as  of  all  true  inter- 
pretation in  the  tradition  of  the  churches  from  the  apos- 
tolic age  down  through  the  entire  succession.  When  the 
heretics  denied  the  infallibility  of  the  apostles,  and 
claimed  that  these  were  incapable  of  comprehending  the 
profounder  sense  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus ;  when  they 
referred  to  the  disagreement  between  Peter  and  Paul,  it 
was  maintained  by  the  defenders  of  the  faith  that  only 
among  themselves,  the  real  descendants  of  the  apostles, 
was  the  genuine  tradition  to  be  found,  on  which  the  true 
faith  could  alone  be  established,  and  in  accordance  with 
which  alone  a  right  interpretation  was  possible. 

It  was  but  a  step  from  this  appeal  to  the  tradition  of 
the  churches,  which  derived  its  chief  worth  from  its  apos- 
tolical source,  to  an  appeal  to  writings  of  a  supposed  apos- 
tolical origin,  so  as  to  meet  the  heretics  with  weapons 
drawn  from  the  armory  of  Scripture-texts.  Their  denial 
of  the  participation  of  the  Supreme  God  in  the  revelation 
of  the  Old  Testament  could  not  be  more  effectively 
answered  than  by  an  appeal  to  apostolic  writings  recog- 
nized as  equal  in  authority  to  that,  as  inspired — in  a  word, 
as  holy  Scripture.  The  ground  of  their  validity  was  their 
supposed  connection  with  the  apostles  in  their  origin 
and  their  conformity  in  doctrine  with  what  was  believed 
to  be  the  genuine  apostolic  tradition  as  held  in  the 
churches.  A  striking  illustration  of  this  point  of  view  is 
furnished  in  a  proceeding  of  Serapion,  a  Bishop  of  Anti- 
och,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century.  It  appears  that 
a  division  had  arisen  in  the  church  at  Rhosse  in  reference 
to  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  Serapion,  in  order  to  appease 


THE   CANON.  Ill 

the  strife,  at  first  permitted  the  Gospel  to  be  read,  pre- 
sumably because  of  its  supposed  apostolic  origin.  But 
having  learned  afterwards  that  it  contained  some  hereti- 
cal teachings,  he  forbade  its  use.  He  declared  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  he  acted  to  be  that  Peter  and  the  other 
apostles  are  to  be  accepted  as  Christ  himself,  but  that 
the  writings  which  falsely  go  under  their  names  are  to  be 
rejected.* 

The  consolidation  of  the  catholic  Church,  then,  was 
the  condition  of  the  settlement  of  the  canon  of  the 
Gospels.  As  the  Church  came  to  a  consciousness  of  itself; 
as  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  in  the  conflict  with 
heresy  more  and  more  united  it  ;  as  the  appeal  to  apos- 
tolic tradition  preserved  in  its  various  branches  and  to 
writings  believed  to  be  of  apostolic  origin  became  a 
necessity  ;  as  an  authority  held  to  be  above  question 
could  not  be  dispensed  with  in  the  exigencies  of  its  devel- 
opment, it  found  itself  constrained  to  hold  fast  to  its 
revelation  contained  in  the  teachings  of  the  apostles,  to 
exclude  all  writings  which  deviated  from  the  traditional 
catholic  faith,  and  to  collect  the  documents  of  this 
revelation  in  a  canon,  or  rule  of  faith  and  practice.f 
Apostolic  in  origin,  that  is,  written  by  apostles  or  by  men 
who  had  been  in  intercourse  with  them,  and  apostolic  in 
doctrine  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  churches  must 
all  writings  be  which  were  accepted  as  canonical.  The 
chief  promoters  of  canon-forming  were  probably  the 
Bishops,  and  it  is  likely,  as  Holtzmann  maintains  against 
Tischendorf,  Bleek,  and  others,;):  that  the  process  of  estab- 
lishing the  canon  would  have  been  much  slower  than  it 
was,  if  it  had  been  obliged  to  wait  upon  the  agreement 


*  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  12.  f  KavooVy  canon,  rule. 

t  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  143. 


112  GOSPEL-CRI TICISM. 

of  the  churches  through  general  enlightenment  and 
mutual  understanding.  The  Bishops,  tracing  their  suc- 
cession from  the  apostles,  would  naturally  regard  the 
writings  of  these  as  the  true  standard  of  catholic  ortho- 
doxy. The  procedure  of  Serapion,  previously  mentioned, 
is  a  good  illustration  of  the  fact  and  the  necessity  of 
episcopal  supervision  in  the  matter  of  accepting  and 
rejecting  the  current  writings.  Clothed  with  authority  in 
matters  of  doctrine,  it  would  naturally  fall  to  them  to 
decide  what  books  should  be  read  in  the  churches,  and 
thus  receive  a  sort  of  canonical  recognition. 

It  would  doubtless  be  a  great  error  to  suppose  that  the 
leaders  in  the  Church  during  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century  engaged,  after  the  manner  of  modern  theologians, 
in  critical  researches  to  establish  a  canon  of  sacred  New- 
Testament  Scripture.  As  little  are  we  justified  in  thinking 
them  to  have  been  preoccupied  with  the  absolute  and 
exclusive  authority  of  the  supposed  apostolic  writings. 
True  representatives  of  the  catholic  tendency,  which  has 
remained  essentially  the  same  to  the  present  day  in  the 
Roman  Church,  their  predominant  interest  was  ecclesiasti- 
cal. They  were  far  from  being  protestants  in  their  atti- 
tude towards  Scripture  or  tradition.  According  to  one  of 
them,  the  Spirit  of  God  comes  to  individuals  only  through 
the  Church,  so  that  one  may  say  not  only  that  the  Church 
is  where  the  Spirit  is,  but  also  that  the  Spirit  is  where  the 
Church  is.*  They  taught  that  the  depositaries  of  tradi- 
tion, the  chiefs  of  the  different  communities,  especially  of 
those  founded  by  the  apostles,  above  all  of  that  at  Rome, 
were  the  best  teachers  of  the  truth.f 

*  Ubi  enim  ecclesia  ibi  et  spiritus  Dei,  et  ubi  spiritus  Deii  bi  ecclesia, 
*  *  *  cujus  non  participant  omnes  qui  non  currunt  ad  ecclesiam. — Irenseus. 

f  Discere  oportet  veritatem  apud  quos  est  ea  quse  est  ab  apostolis  ecclesise 
successio.  — Ibid. 


THE   CANON.  113 

12. THE    GOSPELS    IN    THE    ALEXANDRIAN    CHURCH. 

The  Alexandrians  treated  the  conception  of  canonicity 
with  greater  freedom  and  in  a  more  spiritualizing  way 
than  did  the  Western  Church.  Clement  (170-211)  not 
only  took  into  account  the  external,  apostolic  origin  of 
writings,  but  their  spiritual  derivation  from  the  apostles, 
or  the  question  of  their  contents  as  worthy  or  unworthy  of 
their  authorship.  So  purely  subjective  a  point  of  view  as 
this  latter  undoubtedly  has  its  perils.  But  it  was  controlled 
by  a  regard  for  testimony,  and  also,  it  appears,  modified 
somewhat  by  philological  criticism.*  In  a  work  which  is 
lost,  "  Hypotyposes,"  Clement  gave,  according  to  Eu- 
sebius,  an  abridged  account  of  all  the  canonical  scriptures, 
not  even  omitting  those  that  were  disputed,  such  as  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  the  Revelation  of  Peter.  In  the 
"  Stromata  "  he  quotes  Clement  of  Rome  and  Barnabas  as 
apostles,  f  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  as  a  divine  revela- 
tion. \  Besides,  he  quotes  the  Gospels  according  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Egyptians,  and  although  he  distinguishes 
these  from  the  four  Gospels,  §  his  distinction  between 
canonical  and  uncanonical  books  does  not  appear  to  be 
drawn  with  a  very  firm  hand.  In  the  writing  previously 
mentioned,  the  "  Hypotyposes,"  he  gives  the  tradition  re- 
specting the  order  of  the  Gospels,  as  derived  from  the 
oldest  presbyters,  as  follows  :  "  Those  which  contain  the 
genealogies  were  written  first ;  but  the  Gospel  of  Mark 
was  occasioned  in  the  following  manner :  When  Peter  had 
proclaimed  the  word  publicly  in  Rome,  and  declared  the 

*  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  attributed  in  the  Western  Church  to  Barna- 
bas, was  regarded  by  Clement  as  the  work  of  Paul,  because  worthy  of  an 
apostle.  It  was  thought  to  have  been  written  in  Hebrew,  and  the  translation 
was  attributed  to  Luke  because  of  a  similarity  in  its  style  to  the  Acts. 
— Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  14. 

f  Strom,  ii.  6,  sec.  31,  iv.  17.  \  Ib.  i.  29.  §  Ib.  93. 

8 


1 1 4  GOSPEL-CRI  TIC  ISM. 

Gospel  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  there  was  a 
great  number  present,  they  requested  Mark,  who  had  fol- 
lowed him  from  afar,  and  remembered  well  what  he  had 
said,  to  reduce  these  things  to  writing ;  and  after  compos- 
ing his  Gospel,  he  gave  it  to  those  who  requested  it  of 
him.  Which  when  Peter  understood,  he  neither  hindered 
nor  encouraged  it.  But  John,  last  of  all,  perceiving  that 
what  had  reference  to  the  body  of  the  Saviour  was  suffi- 
ciently detailed,  and  being  encouraged  by  his  familiar 
friends,  and  urged  by  the  Spirit,  wrote  a  spiritual  Gospel."* 
It  is  noteworthy  that  this  tradition  proceeds  upon  the  as- 
sumed priority  of  Luke  to  Mark,  and  that  it  represents  the 
composition  of  the  Gospels  as  undertaken  in  a  quite  human 
way  and  without  divine  impulse  or  guidance,  with  the 
single  exception  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  to  the  writing  of 
which  the  author  was  "  urged  on  by  the  Spirit." 

Origen,  whose  life  extended  to  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  drew  more  sharply  than  Clement  the  distinction 
of  canonical  and  uncanonical.  With  him  the  historical  in- 
terest predominates,  and  the  internal  character  of  the 
Christian  writings  is  subordinated  to  their  recognition  and 
use  in  the  churches.  He  was  the  first  to  distinguish  the 
current  Gospels,  Epistles,  and  other  works,  as  "  accepted  "f 
and  "  doubted  "  ;  \  but  from  the  manner  in  which  he  was 
able  to  carry  out  this  distinction  is  apparent  the  great  dif- 
ficulty of  establishing  a  clear  and  secure  result.  §  So  far  as 
the  Gospels  are  concerned,  however,  he  unhesitatingly  de- 
clares that  our  four  canonical  ones  are  alone  to  be  accepted, 
although  he  uses  and  quotes  that  according  to  the  He- 
brews, and  mentions  the  Acts  of  Paul.  His  language 
concerning  the  Gospels  is :  "  I  have  learned  by  tradition 

*  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  14.         f  ojuohoyovjusra. 

\  a.)JL(f)ifta7(X6}JLEva.  §  Hilgenfeld,  Kanon  und  Kritik,  p.  47. 


THE   CANON.  115 

concerning  the  four  Gospels,  which  alone  are  uncontro- 
verted  in  the  Church  of  God  spread  under  heaven,*  that 
that  according  to  Matthew,  who  was  once  a  publican  but 
afterwards  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  written  first; 
*  *  *  that  according  to  Mark,  second  ;  *  *  *  that  ac- 
cording to  Luke,  third  ;  *  *  *  that  according  to  John, 
last  of  all." 

As  to  other  Gospels,  they  were  all  rejected  by  Origen, 
and  excluded  from  use,  especially  from  public  reading. 
There  might,  indeed,  he  thought,  be  much  in  them  that 
was  unobjectionable  and  even  right,  but  they  were  to  be 
regarded  as  apocryphal.f  While  all  that  was  contained 
in  the  four  Gospels  rested  upon  divine  inspiration,  and  was 
therefore  genuine,  the  contents  of  others  were  doubtful. 
In  regard  to  these  apocryphal  Gospels,  however,  we  find 
him  sometimes  holding  a  tentative  and  even  wavering 
attitude,  which  might,  perhaps,  be  expected  in  a  man  who 
held  the  Epistles  of  Barnabas  and  Clement  of  Rome  in 
high  esteem,  and  thought  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  very 
useful  and  even  inspired. :(:  In  one  passage  he  appears  to 
be  undecided  whether  the  book  called  "  The  Preaching  of 
Peter  "  is  genuine,  spurious,  or  mixed,§  while  in  another 
place  he  excludes  it  definitely  from  the  canon. ||  In  gen- 
eral these  Gospels  had  for  him  an  unequal  worth,  or  very 
little,  or  none  at  all,  and  he  quotes  few  of  them,  rejecting 
others  entirely  with  the  remark  that  they  were  not  written 
at  the  impulse  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  if  Origen  was 
unable  without  some  wavering  to  draw  the  line  between 

*  a  nat  fj.6va  dvavTipprjrd  sdrir  ev   ry  vTto,  etc. 
f  Evayyskia  ditoupvcpa. 

|  Quae  scriptura  valde  mihi  utilis  videtur,  et  ut  puto  divinitus  inspirata. 
In  Ep.  ad  Rom.  x.  c.  31. 

§  Ttorepov  yvrjtiiov  rf  voftov  rf  juiuror.     In  Joh.  xiii.  17. 
I  De  Prin.  Pref.  §  8. 


1 1 6  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

canonical  and  uncanonical  writings,  he  spoke  without  re- 
serve of  the  necessity  of  closing  the  canon  of  holy  Scrip- 
tures according  to  the  principle  that  those  documents 
must  be  held  as  sacred  which  had  been  regarded  as  holy 
Scripture  in  the  Church  down  to  that  time,  and  that  the 
number  of  them  must  be  neither  increased  nor  diminished. 
These  are  called  "  the  books  in  the  Testament,"  or  Cove- 
nant,* or  so  far  as  there  was  no  doubt  as  to  their  admission 
in  the  Church,  "  the  generally  acknowledged,  the  Scriptures 
which  are  current,  and  believed  in  all  the  churches  of  God 
to  be  divine."  The  acknowledged  writings  (ojuoXoyovjusva), 
in  regard  to  whose  admissibility  a  general  agreement  ex- 
isted, he  placed  in  the  first  class  of  holy  Scriptures.  From 
these  he  distinguished  a  second  class,  which  comprised 
the  writings  in  respect  to  whose  origin  and  genuineness 
doubts  existed  in  the  Church.  In  view  of  what  has  already 
been  said  it  is  evident  that  none  of  our  four  Gospels  were 
placed  in  the  second  class. 

A  period  in  the  history  of  the  canon  of  the  Gospels  has 
now  been  reached  at  which  the  study  of  the  subject  for 
the  purposes  of  this  treatise  may  be  terminated.  Our 
four  Gospels,  after  having  remained  unnamed  and  undis- 
tinguished in  the  mass  of  the  early  Christian  literature  for 
about  one  hundred  years,  are  found  to  have  made  their 
way  by  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  to  a  general 
recognition  in  the  Church  as  exclusive  historical  sources 
for  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  They  are  clearly  dis- 
tinguished from  other  similar  writings.  They  are  believed 
to  be  of  apostolic  origin,  that  is,  to  have  been  written  by 
apostles  or  their  immediate  followers.  They  are  regarded 
as  "  inspired,"  and  are  quoted  as  such  along  with  the 
*  TO.  kv  ry  diaOrfKy  fiifihia,  or  simply  £v8iaQr]Ha. 


THE   CANON.  1 1/ 

writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  other  words,  they  are 
recognized  as  the  Christian  classics  of  the  Church,  and 
have  accordingly  attained  to  canonical  rank  in  the  sense 
of  that  term  which  was  set  forth  at  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter.  The  inquiries  which  are  here  terminated,  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind,  are  historical,  and  have  resulted 
only  in  establishing  certain  facts  of  history.  To  what  ex- 
tent the  judgments  which  the  Church  held  of  these 
writings  in  the  third  century  are  tenable  on  critical 
grounds  it  will  be  the  task  of  the  succeeding  investigations 
to  determine. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   SYNOPTIC    PROBLEM. 

A  LTHOUGH  a  difference  between  the  first  three 
^~Y  Gospels  and  the  fourth  was  early  observed,  and 
expressed  in  the  tradition  that  John  wrote  "  a  spiritual 
Gospel,"  it  is  due  to  the  critical  tendency  in  modern  times 
that,  in  the  investigation  of  these  writings,  the  former 
have  been  kept  quite  distinct  from  the  latter,  and  con- 
sidered as  a  special  type  of  the  evangelic  history.  So 
long  as  the  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  prevailed, 
the  study  of  the  Gospels  in  their  relation  to  one  another 
exhausted  itself  in  the  futile  endeavor  to  harmonize  the 
four  records,  in  order  by  all  sorts  of  arbitrariness  and 
violence  to  bring  them  into  accord.  But  when  they  could 
no  longer  be  regarded  as  written  after  the  dictation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  study  of  them  as  literature  resulted  in 
giving  to  the  critical  interest  its  due  influence  and  impor- 
tance, and  not  only  in  distinguishing  them  more  sharply 
into  the  two  classes  previously  mentioned,  but  also  in 
subjecting  the  first  three  to  a  thorough  examination  in 
their  relation  to  one  another.  The  conclusion  has  been 
reached  that  these  present  the  biography  of  Jesus  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  popular  tradition,  while  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  controlled,  in  a  less  degree,  by  a  historical  pur- 
pose, and  much  more  by  a  theological  interest.  The 
tendency  in  the  study  of  the  Gospels  during  the  last  fifty 
years,  has  not  been  towards  an  investigation  of  them  by 

118 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  1 19 

the  process  of  criticism  alone,  but  by  means  of  historical 
inquiry  as  well.  According  to  this  historico-critical  method 
of  examining  them,  they  are  studied  not  simply  as  litera- 
ture, but  as  products  of  the  time  in  which  they  were  writ- 
ten, that  is,  as  works  which  in  no  small  degree  reflect  the 
ideas  and  discussions,  the  hopes  and  fears,  which  prevailed 
in  Christian  circles  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century  and 
the  beginning  of  the  second.  Whatever  defects  and  limi- 
tations may  be  charged  against  this  method,  it  is  certain 
not  only  that  nearly  all  the  results  of  importance  which 
have  been  attained  in  this  field  of  investigation  are  due  to 
it,  but  also  that  it  is  destined  henceforth  to  prevail,  and 
that  a  return  to  the  old  dogmatic  point  of  view  is  not 
likely  ever  to  become  general. 

The  first  three  Gospels,  in  their  relation  to  one  another, 
present  a  unique  phenomenon  in  literature.  Their  ac- 
counts of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  are  so  similar  in 
outline  and  contents,  and  present  agreements  in  concep- 
tions and  forms  of  expression  so  striking,  that  they  offer  a 
common  view  of  the  history,  and  accordingly  received 
from  Griesbach  the  designation  of  "  Synoptics."  Not 
only,  however,  do  they  thus  to  a  certain  extent  cover  one 
another,  but  they  also  present  remarkable  differences, 
which  often  amount  to  discrepancies,  and  even  contradic- 
tions, in  words,  in  names,  in  forms  of  expression,  and  in 
the  sequence  of  events.  The  similarity  appears  in  a  very 
striking  form  in  the  general  conception  and  order  of  the 
whole  narrative.  The  public  ministry  of  Jesus  is  con- 
nected in  all  three  with  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist, 
is  chiefly  confined  to  Galilee,  and  is  set  forth  in  certain 
epochs,  as  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  Peter's  con- 
fession, and  the  tragic  conclusion  in  Jerusalem.  This  last 
series  of  events,  the  discourses  spoken  here,  the  passion, 


1 20  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

death,  and  resurrection,  are  set  forth  with  a  greater  agree- 
ment than  is  found  in  any  other  extended  part  of  the 
narrative.  A  remarkable  similarity  is  also  evident  in  the 
method  of  constructing  the  history  and  of  using  the  ma- 
terials composing  it.  Instead  of  that  consecutive  sort 
of  narrative,  which  results  from  a  complete  grasp  and 
fusing  of  the  subject-matter,  these  Gospels  present  a 
succession  of  little  accounts,  which  isolate  themselves 
by  peculiar  beginnings  and  formulas  of  closing,  as  if  they 
were  put  together  by  the  writers  like  mosaics.  Sixty 
such  small  sections  have  been  distinguished  which,  a  few 
differences  apart,  are  found  in  all  three.  Matthew  and 
Luke  have  about  forty  sections  in  common ;  and  Mark 
has  twenty  in  common  partly  with  Matthew  and  partly 
with  Luke.* 

The  extent  of  the  agreement  of  the  three  synoptists 
also  appears  to  be  determined  by  a  uniform  choice  of 
material,  which  can  hardly  be  explained  by  a  reference  to 
an  "objectively  identical  background  of  history."  Out 
of  the  great  amount  of  historical  material,  which  must 
have  been  at  the  disposal  of  each  of  them,  all  appear 
to  have  confined  themselves  to  the  same  small  group 
of  incidents.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  Jesus 
pronounced  no  other  discourses  than  those  reported  by 
these  three  narrators.  It  is  expressly  related  that  he 
healed  vast  numbers  of  the  ill  of  various  diseases ;  but 
why  are  no  cases  given  except  those  in  which  all  the  three 
evangelists  agree  ?  Of  the  "  many  wonderful  works " 
which  he  performed,  why  do  these  historians  present 
almost  the  same,  and  no  others  ?  A  woe  is  pronounced 
upon  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida,  according  to  Matthew  and 
Luke ;  but  as  to  the  occasion  which  called  it  forth,  why 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  348. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  121 

are  all  silent  ?  It  appears  from  such  phenomena  that  the 
connection  of  the  accounts,  the  extent  and  choice  of  the 
material,  cannot  have  been  determined  by  the  historical 
data  actually  existing,  and  probably  within  reach  of  any 
writer  who  might  be  inclined  to  seek  them,  but  rather  by 
some  influence  in  their  sources  which  affected  all  the 
narrators.  It  is  inconceivable  that  three  historians,  who 
should  have  made  independent  researches  in  the  abun- 
dant materials  for  a  life  of  Jesus  which  must  have  existed 
towards  the  end  of  the  first  century,  would  have  produced 
three  writings  presenting  such  phenomena  as  those  of  our 
three  synoptics.  Remarkable  agreement  in  details,  along 
with  slight  variations,  is  illustrated  in  the  sections  report- 
ing the  baptism,  the  temptation,  and  the  return  to  Galilee, 
in  the  accounts  of  the  storm  on  the  lake  and  of  the  Gada- 
renes,  of  the  paralytic  and  the  publican,  Matthew,  of  the 
teachings  regarding  fasting,  the  plucking  of  the  ears  of 
corn  and  of  the  cure  of  the  withered  hand,  of  the  woman 
with  an  issue  of  blood,  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  of  the 
first  prophecy  of  the  passion,  of  the  transfiguration,  of 
the  blind  man  at  Jericho,  and  of  Jesus'  entrance  into 
Jerusalem.  The  agreement  of  all  three,  or  more  fre- 
quently of  two,  narrators  is  often  remarkable  in  passages 
where  it  extends  to  the  very  words  with  only  slight 
variations,  as  in  the  account  of  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand.*  Sometimes  this  sort  of  agreement  runs 
through  a  considerable  section,  as  in  the  accounts  of  the 
cure  of  the  paralytic  which  are  regarded  as  furnishing  "  a 
classical  example."  f 

Parts  of   the  discourses  of   Jesus  appear   in  all   three 
narrators,   and   more  frequently  in   two  of  them   almost 

*  Matt.  xiv.  19,  20;  Mark  vi.  41,  42  ;  Luke  ix.  16,  17. 
f  Matt.  ix.  2-8  ;  Mark  ii.  3-12  ;  Luke  v.  18-26. 


122  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

literally  alike  in  the  Greek  text.  This  is  the  more  sur- 
prising, as  Jesus  spoke  in  Aramaic.  An  example  of  this 
is  found  in  the  eschatological  prophecies.  *  Quite  re- 
markable is  the  use  of  unusual  words  and  expressions 
by  the  three,  as,  "  The  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  from 
them  "  ;  the  figure,  "  taste  of  death  "  ;  f  the  middle  voice 
dnsKpivaro  in  the  essentially  parallel  passages,  Matt, 
xxvii.  12,  Mark  xiv.  61,  Luke  xxiii.  9,  while  in  all 
other  places  where  the  word  is  used,  with  one  exception, 
the  passive  is  employed  ;  the  use  of  the  unusual  word 
dvaKokooS  precisely  in  three  parallel  passages.^  It  is  quite 
significant  that  some  citations  from  the  Old  Testament 
common  to  the  three  records  are  found  to  differ  from  the 
Hebrew  text  in  the  manner  of  the  Septuagint,  and  yet  to 
have  certain  peculiarities  which  are  the  same  in  all 
of  them. 

These  phenomena  are  manifestly  inexplicable  on  the 
hypothesis  that  the  three  evangelists  wrote  independently 
of  one  another.  Criticism,  then,  could  not  but  under- 
take the  task  of  explaining  the  relation  of  the  three  rec- 
ords in  their  origin  to  ascertain  how  such  facts  as  they 
present  can  be  accounted  for,  or,  in  other  words,  to  fur- 
nish a  solution  of  the  synoptic  problem.  The  problem  is 
complicated,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  by  the  fact 
that  in  the  same  passages  which  indicate  a  close  relation 
of  the  records  in  their  sources,  striking  differences  often 
appear  which  sometimes  amount  to  contradictions.  In 
the  account  of  the  cure  of  the  paralytic,  previously 
referred  to,  a  variation  appears  at  the  conclusion  after 

*  Matt,  xxiv.,  Mark  xiii.,  Luke  xxi. 

f  Matt.  ix.  15  ;  Mark  ii.  20  ;  Luke  v.  35  ;  Matt.  xvi.  28  ;  Mark  ix.  i  ; 
Lnke  ix.  27. 

\  Matt.  xix.  23  ;  Mark  x.  23  ;  Luke  xviii.  24.  Holtzmann,  Einleit. 
P-  350. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  12$ 

much  that  is  remarkably  similar.  According  to  Matthew, 
the  people  glorify  God  itfJio  had  given  sucli  power  to  men  ; 
according  to  Luke,  they  say,  "  We  have  seen  strange 
things  to-day  "  ;  according  to  Mark,  "  We  never  saw  it  in 
this  fashion."  But  the  accounts  of  the  appearances  of 
Jesus  after  the  resurrection,  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  are 
mutually  exclusive  and  irreconcilable.  According  to 
Luke,  Jesus  appeared  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection 
only  in  Judea  ;  according  to  Matthew,  only  in  Galilee. 
This  is  one  of  many  examples  which  might  be  quoted  ot 
a  peculiarity  of  these  narratives.  They  sometimes  give 
accounts  of  the  same  event  in  almost  entire  agreement, 
then  suddenly  separate,  and  disagree  in  their  statements, 
only  soon  perhaps  to  come  again  into  harmony.*  Again, 
there  are  sections  in  one  which  are  entirely  wanting  in 
one  or  both  of  the  others.  The  discourses  of  Jesus  in 
Mark  are  few  in  comparison  with  those  in  Matthew  and 
Luke,  and  Luke  has  some  important  ones  which  are  not 
given  in  the  other  two,  the  parables  of  the  prodigal  son 
and  of  the  good  Samaritan,  for  example.  Much  that 
Luke  has  in  common  with  Matthew  appears  in  a  different 
historical  setting.  The  accounts  of  the  call  of  Peter  in 
Matthew  and  Mark  are  totally  irreconcilable  with  that 
given  in  Luke.f  Differences  in  the  grouping  and  succes- 
sion of  events  are  not  uncommon,  one  evangelist  scatter- 
ing material  which  by  one  or  both  of  the  others  is  given 
in  a  mass.  Lexically  regarded  the  records  present  con- 
siderable differences.  The  words  common  to  all  three 
are  found  to  be  in  Matthew  and  Luke  14  per  cent. ;  in 
Mark  23  per  cent.  Matthew  has  of  words  peculiar  to 

*  Compare   the   story   of    the   Centurion,    Matt.  viii.    5-10   with    Luke 
vii.  i-io. 

f  Matt.  iv.  18-22  ;  Mark  i.  16-20  ;  Luke  v.  i-n. 


1 24  GOSPEL.  CRI TICISM. 

himself  56  per  cent.,  Mark  40  per  cent.,  and  Luke  67  per 
cent.  About  half  the  words  in  Mark  are  found  in  Mat- 
thew, but  only  a  fourth  of  those  of  Luke,  while  a  third  of 
the  words  of  Mark  are  in  Luke.*  Lexically  the  first  two 
are  most  alike,  the  first  and  third  most  unlike. 

The  foregoing  very  meagre  outline  of  the  relation  of 
the  first  three  or  synoptic  Gospels  will  perhaps  suffice  to 
give  a  tolerable  idea  of  the  general  nature  of  the  critical 
problem  to  be  solved.  This  synoptic  problem,  however, 
is  not  concerned  merely  with  a  mechanical  solution  of  the 
relation  of  the  synoptics  to  one  another,  but  must  neces- 
sarily include  the  more  important  question  of  the  origin 
of  these  writings.  The  hypothesis  which  proposes  to 
explain  their  likenesses  and  differences  can  be  no  other 
than  a  hypothesis  as  to  their  composition.  The  subject 
is,  accordingly,  of  great  importance,  and  it  has  been  in 
accordance  with  a  right  insight  that  for  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  critical  researches  in  the  study  of  the  Gospels 
have  concentrated  upon  it.  No  thorough  treatment  of 
the  Gospels  can  avoid  this  problem,  and  its  importance  to 
their  exegesis  is  not  likely  to  be  overestimated.  Holtz- 
mann  shows  a  correct  apprehension  of  the  matter  when 
he  says  that  where  doubt  arises  as  to  the  correct  exegesis 
of  a  passage,  the  right  view  is  obtained  in  very  many 
cases  only  from  a  comparison  of  the  two-  or  three-fold 
form  in  which  it  appears  in  the  different  synoptical  nar- 
ratives ;  and  that  the  formation  of  a  competent  judgment 
on  the  contents  of  the  narratives  depends  largely  on  a 
right  insight  into  the  origin  and  dependence  of  the  differ- 
ent forms  in  which  they  lie  before  us.f  Davidson's  re- 
mark that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  at  the  present  day 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  351. 

f  Hand-Commentar  zum  N.  T.,  1889,  p.  I. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  12$ 

to  discuss  the  various  attempts  which  have  been  made  to 
solve  the  synoptic  problem  may  be  true  in  reference  to 
the  learned,  but  the  general  reader  can  hardly  be  better 
introduced  to  the  study  of  the  Gospels  than  by  a  brief 
review  of  the  principal  hypotheses  which  have  been 
offered  for  its  solution.  These  with  some  modifications 
are  the  following:  I.  That  the  later  evangelists  copied 
from  the  earlier.  2.  That  a  common  written  source  (or 
sources)  was  used  by  all.  3.  That  all  drew  from  an  oral 
tradition  which  had  assumed  a  fixed  form.  These  pro- 
posed solutions  will  now  be  considered  briefly  without 
strict  regard  to  historical  sequence. 

I. THE    HYPOTHESIS    OF    COPYING. 

The  theory  that  the  similarities  in  the  first  three  Gospels 
may  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  the  later  writers 
used  the  work  of  their  predecessors  is  perhaps  the  most 
natural.  It  is  also  the  oldest,  and  was  essentially, 
though  not  at  all  in  detail,  set  forth  by  Augustine,*  who 
taught  that  the  evangelists  wrote  with  reference  to  one 
another  in  the  order,  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  that 
the  differences  among  them  are  due  to  their  not  having 
remembered  the  history  in  the  same  way,  so  that  the 
parallel  course  of  the  three  lines  was  disturbed  by  purely 
subjective  influences.  This  order,  according  to  which 
Mark  was  the  slavish  follower  and  abbreviator  of  Mat- 
thew, f  held  sway  until  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
when  it  was  broken  by  Koppe  and  Storr,^;  the  former 
contesting  the  doctrine  that  Mark  was  an  epitomator  of 

*  De  Consensu  Evangelistarum,  i.  2,  4,  12. 

f  Marcus  Matthaeum  secutus  tamquam  pedisequus  et  breviator. 

^  Koppe,  Marcus  non  Epitomator  Matthsei,  1792  ;  Storr,  Ueber  den 
Zweck  der  evangel.  Gesch.  Joh.,  1786  ;  and  De  Fontibus  Evangel.  Matt,  et 
Luoe,  1794. 


1 26  GOSPEL-  CRI  TIC  ISM. 

Matthew,  and  the  latter  maintaining  that  he  was  first  in 
the  order  of  time,  and  the  Greek  translation  of  Matthew 
the  latest.  The  priority  of  Luke  was  defended  as  early 
as  1776  by  Biisching,*  and  a  little  later  by  Evanson.f  But 
the  most  celebrated  work  upon  the  subject  in  the  interest 
of  the  copying-hypothesis  is  that  of  Griesbach,  who  at- 
tempted to  account  for  the  synoptic  phenomena  by  the 
theory  that  Mark  was  founded  upon  Matthew  and  Luke, 
and  that  its  writer  stood  to  these  Gospels  in  the  relation 
of  a  copyist  and  abbreviator.-J  De  Wette  followed  Gries- 
bach in  making  Mark  dependent  on  Matthew  and  Luke, 
leaving  the  way  open  for  the  assumption  of  several  media 
between  any  two  of  the  evangelists.§ 

The  test  of  this  hypothesis,  in  whatever  form  it  may  be 
maintained,  does  not  lie  in  accounting  for  the  similarities 
in  the  three  records,  but  in  explaining  the  differences  and 
discrepancies  which  they  present.  Verbal  coincidences 
and  agreements  in  matters  of  fact  and  in  the  sequence  of 
events  very  naturally  suggest  the  use  of  one  or  two  of  the 
records  by  the  writer  of  another ;  and  while  it  is  true  that 
a  slavish  copying  need  not  be  assumed  by  the  terms  of  the 
hypothesis,  it  is  equally  true  that  wide  divergences  present 
insuperable  difficulties  on  the  presumption  that  a  copyist 
respected  the  record  which  he  used.  At  any  rate,  a  ra- 
tional explanation  of  the  differences  in  the  records  is 
necessary  to  the  establishment  of  the  hypothesis.  The 
three  accounts  of  the  calling  of  Peter  furnish  an  illustra- 
tion in  point.]  Now,  on  the  supposition  that  Mark  copied 

*  Die  Evangelien,  etc.,  1776. 
\  The  Dissonances  of  the  Four  Evangelists,  1792. 

\  Commentatio  qua  Marci  Evangelium  totum  e  Matth.  et  Lucse  commen- 
tariis  descriptum  esse  monstratur,  1789-90. 

§  Lehrbuch  der  hist.-krit.  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  7te  Ausg.  1852. 
|  Matt.  iv.  18-20  ;  Mark  i.  16-20  ;  Luke  v.  i-n. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  I2/ 

from  Matthew,  or  vice  versa,  this  section  would  not  be 
entirely  free  from  difficulties.  The  expressions,  "  two 
brethren,  Simon  who  is  called  Peter  and  Andrew,  his 
brother,"  and  "  Simon  and  Andrew,  his  brother,"  are 
hardly  related  to  each  other  as  original  and  copy.  But 
the  difficulties  become  insuperable  when  Luke's  narrative 
is  taken  into  account.  To  suppose  this  to  have  been  an 
original  for  the  other  two,  or  for  one  of  them,  is  absurd. 
It  has  all  the  features  of  an  independent  composition,  and 
the  others  are  equally  independent  with  regard  to  it.  A 
similar  difficulty  appears  in  comparing  the  three  accounts 
of  a  healing  of  blindness  at  Jericho.  Matthew  relates  that 
as  Jesus  was  going  out  of  the  city,  two  blind  men  cried  out 
to  him  to  have  pity  on  them,  and  he  healed  them.  Mark 
records  the  incident  as  if  there  were  but  one  blind  man, 
and  gives  his  name,  with  special  detail,  as  the  son  of 
Timaeus,  Bartimseus,  entering  into  particulars  in  his  usual 
graphic  way  as  to  his  throwing  off  his  garment,  leaping  up, 
and  coming  to  Jesus.  On  the  other  hand,  Luke  says  that 
the  incident  occurred  as  Jesus  was  approaching  the  city. 
He  differs  from  Matthew,  and  agrees  with  Mark  in  report- 
ing but  one  blind  man,  but  contradicts  the  latter  in  saying 
that  Jesus  ordered  the  man  to  be  brought  to  him.  Accord- 
ing to  Matthew  the  blindness  was  healed  by  a  touch, *  but 
according  to  Mark  and  Luke  by  a  word  only.f  Again, 
Matthew  relates  that  two  demoniacs  were  restored  by 
Jesus  among  the  Gadarenes,  while  Mark  and  Luke  men- 
tion but  one,  and  enter  into  many  details  not  given  by 
Matthew.^  In  the  account  of  the  cursing  of  the  barren 
fig-tree  Matthew  represents  its  withering  as  the  immediate 

*  T!lb(XTO  TbOtV  OULICX-TGOV . 

f  Matt.  xx.  29-34  ;  Mark  x.  46-52  ;  Luke  xviii.  35-43. 
ij;  Matt.  viii.  28-34  ;  Mark  v.  1-20  ;  Luke  viii.  26-39. 


128  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

consequence  of  the  curse  :  "  And  the  disciples  seeing  it 
were  struck  with  awe,  and  said,  '  How  suddenly  this  fig- 
tree  has  withered.'  '  But  Mark's  account  runs  to  the 
effect  that  the  curse  was  pronounced  on  one  morning, 
and  the  withering  of  the  tree  was  first  observed  on  the 
following  morning.*  Luke  omits  the  story.  These  facts 
are  quite  irreconcilable  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  de- 
pendence of  the  synoptists  on  one  another  as  copyists 
in  whatever  form  it  may  be  presented. 

A  favorite  illustration  of  Mark's  dependence  on  the  other 
two  evangelists  is  furnished  in  the  following  parallels  : 

Matt.  viii.  16.  Mark  i.  32.  Luke  iv.  40. 

And   when    evening  And  in  the  evening  And   when    the   sun 

came  they   brought  to  when  the  sun  was  set  was  setting  all  who  had 

him    many    that   were  they  brought  to  him  all  any   sick    with    divers 

possessed    by  demons,  that  were  sick  and  those  diseases  brought  them 

etc.  possessed  of  demons.  to  him,  etc. 

The  fact  that  Mark  here  appears  to  combine  from  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  the  expressions,  "  And  when  the  evening 
came"  and,  "When  the  sun  was  setting"  into,  "And  in 
the  evening  when  the  sun  was  set,"  was  regarded  as  evi- 
dence that  his  Gospel  is  an  epitome  of  the  other  two. 
But  it  has  been  pointed  out  that  double  expressions  of 
this  kind  are  in  several  other  places  used  by  Mark,  who 
seems  to  have  had  a  predilection  for  them,  for  example, 
"  Early,  long  before  day,"  i.  35,  and  "Very  early  ...  at 
the  rising  of  the  sun,"  xvi.  2.  Besides,  in  the  case  re- 
ferred to,  Mark  had  said  in  verse  21  that  the  day  was  a 
sabbath,  and  on  that  day  the  sick  could  be  brought  only 
after  sunset,  so  that  the  double  expression  is  not  necessarily 
referable  to  a  careless  epitomizing.  But  conclusive  against 
the  hypothesis  that  Mark  used  the  other  two  records  is 

*  Matt.  xxi.  18-22  ;   Mark  xi.  12-25. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  129 

the  fact  that  his  text  does  not  contain  the  lexical  and 
stylistic  peculiarities  which  are  found  in  these.* 

This  hypothesis  of  a  copying  by  the  later  evangelists 
of  the  writings  of  their  predecessor  or  predecessors,  al- 
though supported  in  some  of  its  protean  forms  by  many 
eminent  scholars,  has  not  well  stood  the  test  of  time,  and 
now  finds  little  favor.  Weiss  says  of  it  that  it  appears  as 
a  pure  aberration,  so  far  as  it  only  leads  to  a  mistaking 
and  obscuring  of  the  actual  situation,  while  all  other 
hypotheses  proceed  from  considerations  which  are  partly 
right,  and  so  have  a  relative  justification,  f  Reuss  re- 
marks that  by  all  the  combinations  to  which  the  hypothe- 
sis has  given  rise  are  easily  explained  the  agreement  of 
one  writer  with  another  and  the  pure  additions  which 
have  been  borrowed  from  other  sources  either  oral  or 
written.  But  the  deviations  in  detail  give  rise  to  difficul- 
ties, because  they  show  that  a  preference  was  given  to 
those  other  sources  over  the  evangelist  (or  evangelists) 
who  by  the  hypothesis  was  used,  so  that  actually  the 
relation  of  dependence  did  not  exist.  This  concerns 
especially  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  history.  But 
wholly  inconceivable  is  the  omission  of  entire  sections  of 
importance.^:  To  Mark  must  be  attributed  the  intention 
of  only  giving  excerpts  from  the  history,  if  he  is  supposed 

*  He  does  not  take  from  Matthew  the  peculiar  words,  ayyzkoS  xvpiov, 
juahania,  xaipcS,  Ttapovdia,  6  kayoS  rrj$  fiadiksia},  r/  pa.6ikzia  TK>V 
ovpavoov,  etc.  ;  nor  from  Luke,  Xi^rrj,  £7ri6rdrr/S,  6  nvpioS  (of  Christ), 
XdpiS,  xaP^£^ai)  6<*>ri?p)  tfc&rrfpia,  8e  nai,  jusrd  ravra,  ZcpiGrdrai, 
VTtotfrpegiEiv,  TtavetiQai,  vitdpxsiv,  etc. ;  nor  finally,  from  both,  words 
which  would  most  naturally  force  themselves  upon  his  attention,  as 
itopevetfOai,  naXslv  (to  name),  which  last  he  uses  only  once  in  a  quota- 
tion, xi.  7,  agio's,  srepot,  etc.,  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  361. 

f  Leben  Jesu,  i.  p.  39. 

J  Of  Matt.  xiv.  22-xvi.  12,  xix.  I  f.  xx.  I  f.  in  Luke  ;  of  Luke  vii.  II  f. 
x.  25,  and  the  greater  part  of  chapters  xii.-xvii.  in  Matthew. 
9 


130  GOSPEL-  CRI  TIC  ISM. 

to  have  written  later.  The  lesser  differences  in  the  com- 
mon sections  are  such  that  it  is  not  always  the  same 
evangelist  who  has  the  more  complete,  accurate,  and 
vivid  narrative ;  these  differences  cannot,  therefore,  be 
regarded  as  thorough-going  emendations,  or  signs  of  indi- 
vidual negligence  and  haste.  But  as  one  is  compelled  to 
explain  them  as  due  to  other  causes,  the  hypothesis  falls 
on  account  of  its  untenableness,  since  it  must  assume  that 
one  of  the  evangelists  had  the  work  of  another  before 
him,  and  line  by  line  copied,  corrected,  abridged,  interpo- 
lated, transposed,  etc.  But  the  narrative  certainly  does 
not  give  the  impression  of  such  careful,  studied  labor. 
Besides,  the  consideration  has  been  disregarded  through- 
out that  still  other  books,  in  like  manner  similar  and  dis- 
similar, were  in  existence,  and  must  also  in  any  case  have 
been  taken  into  the  series  of  sources.  * 

2. THE  HYPOTHESIS  OF  A  COMMON  WRITTEN  SOURCE  OR  OF  AN 

ORIGINAL    GOSPEL. 

The  celebrated  author  of  the  hypothesis  of  an  original 
Gospel  as  a  solution  of  the  synoptic  problem  believed 
himself,  to  employ  his  own  language,  to  have  accom- 
plished the  first  essay  of  a  higher  criticism  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  writings  of  which  he  in  his  Introduction 
proposed  to  investigate  according  to  the  rules  of  criticism 
as  they  are  applied  to  other  human  writings.  Eichhorn, 
in  the  learned  work  in  which  his  theory  of  an  original 
Gospel  was  set  forth, f  undertook  a  purely  literary  and 
historical  treatment  of  the  Gospels,  which  exerted  a 
powerful  influence  on  the  thought  of  the  century  which 
it  introduced.  Already  in  the  study  of  the  canon  it 

*  Gesch.  der  heil.  Schr.  N.  T.  §  180. 
f  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  1804. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  131 

has  been  seen  that  contemporaneous  with,  and  perhaps 
anterior  to,  our  Gospels  there  existed  a  considerable 
Gospel-literature,  and  the  third  evangelist  expressly  de- 
clares that  the  work  of  writing  accounts  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  had  been  taken  in  hand  by  many  before  he  at- 
tempted it.  The  existence  of  such  writings,  some  of  which 
appear  to  have  been  held  in  high  regard  in  the  early 
Church,  could  not  but  suggest  an  inquiry  as  to  the  relation 
which  they  may  have  sustained  to  the  canonical  Gospels, 
and  whether  some  other  writings  of  the  kind  of  which  no 
trace  remains  may  not  have  been  very  near  to  the  latter 
in  their  origin.  The  peculiar  phenomena  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels  still  further  provoked  investigation,  and  it  was 
with  reference  to  them  to  the  exclusion  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  that  Eichhorn's  hypothesis  of  Gospel-formation 
was  propounded. 

The  synoptic  phenomena  of  agreement  and  difference 
are  accounted  for  on  this  theory  by  the  hypothesis  that 
the  basis  of  the  narratives  was  an  original  Gospel  *  which 
was  a  sort  of  guide,  or  book  of  elements,  for  the  preachers 
who  assisted  the  apostles  in  the  earliest  teaching  of  Chris- 
tianity. It  was  supposed  to  have  been  written  about  the 
year  37  or  38  and  to  have  been  a  rough  outline  in  the 
popular  language  and  mode  of  thought  of  Judaism  to 
serve  as  a  proof  that  Jesus  was  the  promised  Messiah. 
From  this  sprang  the  numerous  Gospels  which  were  in 
circulation  in  the  second  century,  and  were  rejected  in 
favor  of  our  four  canonical  Gospels,  as  well  as  other  trans- 
lations and  revisions  of  the  original  writing.  For  the 
solution  of  the  problem  which  our  synoptics  present 
Eichhorn  supposed  that  these  were  written  independently 
of  one  another,  thus  rejecting  entirely  the  theory  of  copy- 

*  Urevangelium. 


132  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

ing  or  dependence  in  all  its  forms.  The  sections  in  them 
which  are  common  to  all  are  on  this  hypothesis  to  be 
regarded  as  the  original  biography  of  Jesus,  but  the  dif- 
ferences which  are  found  along  with  the  similarities  are  to 
be  explained  by  supposing  that  the  original  Hebraic  out- 
line which  was  the  basis  of  the  synoptic  narratives  under- 
went many  revisions,  of  which  each  of  the  writers  had  a 
different  one.  Since  the  similarities  of  expression  in  many 
passages  of  the  three  records  cannot  be  accounted  for  on 
the  supposition  of  three  independent  translations  of  the 
original  Gospel  by  each  of  the  three  evangelists,  it  is  sup- 
posed that  a  translation  of  it  into  Greek  was  made  before 
it  had  received  additions.  This  translation  was  used  by 
the  three  independent  translators  of  three  different  copies 
of  the  revised  and  enlarged  original  Gospel  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  Greek  editions  of  them.  Thus  the  differences  and 
verbal  agreements  of  our  synoptics  are  supposed  to  be 
accounted  for,  the  latter  being  traced  to  one  translator 
and  the  former  to  the  three  translators  who  could  not 
escape  from  the  influence  of  their  predecessors. 

But  there  remain  to  be  accounted  for  whole  sections  in 
one  evangelist  which  are  not  in  either  of  the  others,  or  in 
two  which  are  not  in  the  third.  These  are  regarded  as 
incompatible  with  the  theory  that  one  evangelist  wrote 
with  the  work  of  another  before  him,  and  there  remains, 
according  to  Eichhorn,  only  the  supposition  that  when 
two  of  these  writers  have  common  sections  they  derived 
them  from  the  same  original  source.  These  sections  were 
originally  composed  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  the  two 
writers  had  two  different  translations  of  them  into  Greek. 
It  is  also  necessary  to  assume,  in  order  to  carry  out  the 
theory,  that  the  documents  used  by  the  three  evangelists 
had  gone  through  many  hands,  and  had  received  various 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  133 

additions  from  the  current  tradition  of  the  life  and  teach- 
ings of  Jesus.  Many  important  changes  may  also  have 
been  made  by  the  evangelists  themselves,  but  it  is,  of 
course,  impossible  to  determine  what  they  are.  The 
Gospels,  then,  are  in  a  certain  sense  distortions  of  the 
original  biography  of  Jesus.  What  is  really  original  in 
them  constitutes  only  that  part  in  which  they  agree.  All 
else  is  the  result  of  alteration,  difference  in  translation, 
addition,  interpolation,  transformation.  The  genuineness 
of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  can,  of  course,  according  to  this 
theory,  be  maintained  only  in  a  very  unusual  sense.  Of 
apostolical  origin  it  contains  nothing  but  those  sections 
which  are  common  to  all  three,  and  passed  into  it  from  the 
original  Gospel.  But  the  portions  which  are  peculiar  to  it 
and,  indeed,  many  which  the  other  two  have  in  common 
with  it  are  regarded  as  unhistorical  and  unapostolical  on 
account  of  their  legendary  character.  The  first  Gospel, 
Eichhorn  says,  may  be  regarded  as  Matthew's,  but  not  in 
the  sense  that  it  came  from  him  in  its  present  form,  but 
because  an  original  Gospel  lay  at  the  basis  of  it  which  was 
by  him  transformed  and  in  some  places  corrected.  *  By 
means  of  this  separation  of  the  unapostolical  (the  accounts 
of  the  birth,  childhood,  and  temptation)  from  the  apostoli- 
cal portions,  or  all  that  had  an  apostolical  confirmation, 
Eichhorn  thought  that  he  was  establishing  the  credibility 
of  the  evangelic  history,  because  the  original  Gospel  did, 
indeed,  contain  accounts  of  miracles,  but  only  in  harmless 
adaptation  to  the  lower  popular  speech  and  the  ordinary 
Jewish  ideas.f  "  If  no  angelic  host  greeted  the  birth  of 
Jesus  with  a  song  of  praise,  if  no  graves  were  opened  at 
the  crucifixion,  and  no  saints  were  sent  from  them  to  ap- 

*  Einleit.  i.  p.  457. 

|  Hilgenfeld,  Kanon  und  Kritik,  p.  134. 


1 34  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

pear  in  Jerusalem,  and  no  guardians  watched  the  tomb  of 
Jesus  ;  how  much  remains  of  the  objections  with  which 
thirty  years  ago  [in  the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments]  the 
Gospel-history  was  shaken  in  its  foundations  ?  And  where 
would  be  found  its  new  fortifications  which  might  hitherto 
have  been  successfully  undertaken?  Through  this  separa- 
tion of  the  apostolic  from  the  unapostolic  which  the  higher 
criticism,  if  one  will  only  not  scorn  its  gift,  recommends 
with  the  weightiest  grounds,  are  to  be  found  the  means  of 
securely  establishing  the  inner  credibility  of  the  evangelic 
history."  *  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,  in  which 
there  are  many  additions,  did  not  receive  its  present  form 
until  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Mark  is  a  Greek  edition  of  the  Hebrew  original 
Gospel,  with  a  few  additions  made  for  the  purpose  of 
elucidation.  The  third  Gospel  was  written  by  Luke,  the 
travelling-companion  of  Paul,  for  the  use  of  a  distinguished 
man,  Thcophilus.  It  is  a  similar  edition  of  the  enlarged 
original  Gospel,  and  its  credibility  depends  on  the  excel- 
lence of  the  sources,  which  are  given  for  the  most  part 
word  for  word,  and  on  the  capacity  of  the  evangelist  for 
critically  judging  them.  "  Eichhorn,  then,  put  the  one 
original  Gospel,  whose  changed  and  enlarged  emanations 
our  first  three  Gospels  were  assumed  to  be,  in  the  place  of 
the  one  and  identical  history  of  Jesus  upon  which  the  old 
harmonistic  view  distributed  the  Gospels." 

Eichhorn  did  not  share  the  doubts  concerning  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  fourth  Gospel  which  had  been  entertained 
before  his  time.  He  did  not  relate  it  to  the  original  Gos- 
pel in  the  same  way  as  the  synoptics,  but  thought  it  to  be 
an  independent  work  of  an  illuminated  apostle  who  wished 
to  establish  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus  not  from  the 

*  Einleit.  i.  p.  459. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  135 

Palestinian  point  of  view,  as  derived  from  the  Holy  Spirit, 
but  rather  after  the  Palestinian-Hellenic  mode  of  thought, 
as  from  the  fulness  of  the  Logos.  It  was  a  Gospel  written 
with  reference  to  the  Hellenic  culture  of  the  period  which, 
in  accordance  with  the  philosophy  of  Zoroaster,  Plato,  and 
the  Stoa,  apprehended  the  Logos  as  the  expression  of  the 
power  and  wisdom  of  God.  As  a  sort  of  "  correcting  sup- 
plement "  to  the  original  Gospel,  it  derives  the  proof  of 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  not  from  his  miracles,  but  from 
his  teaching,  in  which  he  attributes  to  himself  all  the  wis- 
dom of  God,  and  appeals  to  the  pure  truth  of  his  doctrine, 
while  the  miracles  are  only  mentioned  as  a  secondary 
matter.  For  Eichhorn,  then,  there  were  really  only  two 
Gospels,  one  of  the  Jewish  popular  belief  and  one  of  illu- 
minated Christianity.* 

Although  the  elaboration  and  defence  of  this  hypothe- 
sis were  accomplished  with  great  ingenuity  and  learning, 
it  is  so  complicated  and  mechanical,  and  rests  on  so  many 
arbitrary  assumptions,  that  it  was  unable  to  secure  general 
or  lasting  acceptance.  There  appears  to  be  no  good 
reason  for  the  assumption  that  personal  peculiarities,  arbi- 
trariness, and  independence  in  the  writers  of  our  Gospels 
might  not  as  well  be  supposed  to  account  for  the  phe- 
nomena which  these  writings  present,  as  like  qualities 
attributed  to  unknown  authors,  translators,  and  manipu- 
lators of  assumed  documents  from  which  the  existing 
evangelic  literature  may  have  been  formed.  The  suppo- 
sition that  our  Gospels  are  mere  aggregates  of  an  indefi- 
nite plurality  of  materials  for  history  cannot  explain  why 
out  of  so  large  a  supply  three  historians  should  hit  upon 
substantially  the  same.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  they  would 
have  arranged  and  grouped  the  materials  so  that  almost 

*  Hilgenfeld,  ut  supra,  p.  137. 


136  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

always  where  one  of  them  suspends  the  sequence  of 
events  both  the  others  hold  it  fast.'*  Again,  the  question 
naturally  arises  whether  there  is  any  reason  for  supposing 
that  such  a  work  as  the  assumed  original  Gospel  ever 
existed  at  all.  There  is  no  evidence  offered  for  its  exist- 
ence, but  it  should  at  least  be  made  to  appear  that  the 
circumstances  and  needs  of  the  time  called  for  such  a 
writing,  or  rendered  its  production  probable.  It  ought  to 
be  shown  that  within  six  or  seven  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ  an  apostle  should  have  thought  it  necessary  to  pre- 
pare a  bare  outline  of  his  life  in  writing,  intended  to  show 
that  he  was  the  promised  Messiah,  and  to  serve  as  a  book 
of  elements  for  the  early  preachers.  It  is  necessary  to 
overcome  the  presumption  that  at  a  time  when  the  oral 
tradition  was  fresh  in  the  minds  of  all  the  need  of  writings 
embodying  it  would  not  be  felt  at  all,  even  for  those  who 
might  be  sent  forth  to  proclaim  the  Gospel,  a  presumption 
which  has  the  support  of  all  the  earliest  literature  of  the 
Church.  If  such  a  work  as  the  supposed  original  Gospel 
did  exist,  it  is  questionable  whether  it  must  not  have  been 
quite  too  meagre  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  the  whole  Gospel- 
literature  which  is  referred  to  it ;  whether  some  historical 
trace  of  its  existence  would  not  be  likely  to  have  remained 
if  ever  it  existed  at  all ;  •(•  and  whether  if  it  was  known  to 
be  of  apostolic  origin  it  is  probable  that  it  would  have  had 
such  a  fortune  as  the  hypothesis  assumes  in  the  hands  of 
copyists,  interpolators,  and  the  whole  series  of  manipulators 
through  whom  it  appears  to  have  almost  lost  its  identity. 

Finally,  the  tenability  of  the  hypothesis  depends  on  its 
standing  the  test  to  which  it  is  subjected  when  applied  to 
the  explanation  of  the  synoptic  phenomena.  Eichhorn 

*4>Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  359. 

f  Baur,  Krit.  Untersuch.  ttber  die  kan.  Evangelien,  p.  28. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  137 

went  so  far  as  to  affirm  that  by  comparing  the  first  three 
Gospels  we  are  able  even  now  to  separate  the  original  life 
of  Jesus,  or  the  original  Gospel,  from  all  subsequent  addi- 
tions, and  collecting  it  out  of  those  Gospels  to  restore  it 
free  from  all  traditions  of  later  times.*  He  actually 
undertook  to  do  this  on  the  principle  that  "  all  those  por- 
tions which  are  common  to  all  three  evangelists  were 
originally  contained,  in  the  common  document,"  and  he 
devoted  to  the  task  more  than  one  hundred  pages  of  the 
first  volume  of  his  Introduction.  But  he  himself  admits 
the  difficulty  of  a  satisfactory  execution  of  this  task  when 
he  says  :  "  We  are  seldom  able  to  determine  as  to  the  words 
how  much  originally  belonged  to  the  primitive  text,  since 
we  are  acquainted  with  it  only  through  translations/'  When 
the  supposed  original  Gospel  has  been  thus  separated 
from  the  three  records,  we  have  a  certain  number  of  pas- 
sages parallel  in  the  sense  that  they  relate  to  the  same 
events,  but  they  present  wide  divergences  in  many  re- 
spects. No  one  will  pretend,  says  Norton,  when  the 
statement  is  brought  distinctly  to  this  point,  that  there 
may  be  found  in  each  Gospel  a  series  of  words  coincident 
in  meaning  with  a  similar  series  to  be  found  in  each  of  the 
other  two,  which  may,  therefore,  be  considered  as  repre- 
senting the  text  of  the  original  Gospel. f 

As  an  Englishman,  Bishop  Marsh,  had  the  honor  of 
elucidating  and  modifying  the  hypothesis  of  Eichhorn,  so 
a  countryman  'of  his,  Edwin  A.  Abbott,  has  recently  pre- 
sented a  new  form  of  the  same  theory  with  important 
changes,  and  has  attempted  to  show  by  a  sort  of  harmony 
of  the  synoptics  the  contents  of  the  original  Gospel.  \ 

*  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  i.  p.  145. 

f  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  i.  Additional  Notes,  p.  clix. 
%  The  Common  Tradition  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  1884.     Also  article  on 
The  Gospels  in  the  Encyclop.  Britannica,  ninth  edition. 


1 3  8  GOSPEL-  CRITICISM. 

But  his  "  Common  Tradition  "  is  so  fragmentary  that  it  is 
difficult  to  think  of  it  as  having  constituted  a  connected 
writing.  Besides,  the  work  is  far  from  being  a  thorough 
treatise  on  the  synoptic  question,  and  leaves  many  of  the 
most  difficult  problems  connected  with  it  unconsidered. 

3. THE    HYPOTHESIS    OF    ORAL    TRADITION. 

Yet  another  attempt  to  solve  the  synoptic  problem  was 
made  by  Gieseler,  who,  after  refuting  the  theory  of  Eich- 
horn,  presented  the  hypothesis  of  a  fixed  oral  tradition 
as  the  source  of  the  three  narratives,  claiming  that  since 
it  admitted  of  historical  justification,  and  fully  explained 
the  origin  of  the  Gospels  in  their  existing  relations  to  one 
another,  it  ought  to  have  the  preference  over  that.*  His 
hypothesis  has  been  called  the  counterpart  of  that  of 
F.  A.  Wolf  on  the  origin  of  the  Homeric  Poems.  It  pro- 
ceeds from  the  historically-established  statement,  that  in 
the  early  years  of  the  apostolic  age,  the  Gospel  was  not 
written  down  for  purposes  of  instruction,  but  was  orally 
propagated.  The  apostles,  being  men  without  culture, 
could  only  by  necessity  be  moved  to  write,  and  no  de- 
mands could  have  been  made  upon  them  which  they  were 
not  able  to  meet  by  means  of  oral  communication.  In 
the  direct  application  of  his  theory  to  the  phenomena  of 
the  synoptic  Gospels,  Gieseler  maintained  that  the  circum- 
stance that  all  three  have  sections  that  are  common  is 
explained  by  the  supposition  that  the  oral'  standard  was 
not  determined  by  a  council,  but  arose,  as  of  itself,  among 
the  apostles  by  means  of  frequent  repetitions  of  the  same 
narratives.  As  the  evangelists  afterwards  wrote  inde- 
pendently, there  was  naturally  made  by  each  a  different 

*  Historisch-kritischer  Versuch  liber  die  Entstehung  und  die  friihesten 
Schicksale  der  schriftlichen  Evangelien,  1818. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  139 

selection  out  of  the  existing  abundant  material,  which  was 
partly  determined  by  the  individuality  of  each  writer,  and 
partly  by  the  needs  of  those  for  whom  the  writing  was 
intended.  The  similar  arrangement  of  the  narrative 
creates  the  least  difficulty.  For  if  the  events  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  appeared  to  the  evangelists  to  be  of  the  greatest 
importance,  a  correct  knowledge  of  their  succession  could 
not  be  lightly  esteemed.  The  deviations  are  explained 
by  the  large  liberty  which  the  .oral  tradition  must  have 
allowed  them.  The  fact  that  the  language  of  all  the  evan- 
gelists, even  that  of  Luke,  who  was  a  master  of  the  pure 
Greek  idiom,  is  that  of  a  Hebraizing-Greek,  is  best  ex- 
plained by -the  assumption  of  an  oral  source  sanctioned  by 
constant  usage  ;  since  it  would  otherwise  be  inexplicable 
that  Luke,  who  wrote  for  Greeks,  should  not  have  elabo- 
rated the  existing  accounts  in  a  language  better  suited  to 
them.  It  is  further  argued  that  if  such  an  oral  type  was 
the  basis  of  our  Gospels,  there  must  arise  an  agreement  in 
expression  along  with  deviations  in  often  unimportant 
synonyms,  in  peculiarities  in  adding  single  circumstances, 
and  in  the  transposition  or  altered  representation  of  the 
same  thoughts,  similar  to  the  phenomena  which  these 
writings  present. 

It  is  supposed  that  among  the  apostles,  the  memory  of 
each  came  to  the  assistance  of  that  of  the  others,  and  that 
the  men  who  were  made  fellow-laborers  of  the  apos- 
tles were  instructed  by  one  of  them  in  the  presence  of 
the  rest,  so  that  these  memorabilia,  or  memoirs,  assumed 
a  tolerably  fixed  historical  form  which  substantially 
appears  in  the  similar  parts  of  the  synoptic  Gospels.  But 
since  in  the  repetitions  of  the  history  considerable  free- 
dom of  representation  must  be  assumed,  together  with 
the  admission  into  their  discourses  by  the  apostles  of 


140  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

various  circumstances  and  events  drawn  from  the  memory 
of  each,  the  tradition  must  have  been  constantly  changing 
internally  and  receiving  additions.  Hence  the  deviations 
from  one  another  in  our  synoptic  records.  This  originally 
Aramaic  oral  type  of  the  Gospel-tradition  was  carefully 
translated  into  Greek,  as  considerable  numbers  of  Helle- 
nists were  received  into  the  Church.  Finally,  each  of  the 
evangelists  adapted  himself  in  the  choice  and  use  of  the 
historical  material  of  the  tradition  to  the  circle  of  readers 
for  whom  his  work  was  primarily  intended,  so  that  Mat- 
thew wrote  a  purely  Palestinian  Gospel,  Mark  a  modified 
Palestinian  one,  and  Luke  a  Pauline  work  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  great  apostle's  interpretation  of  Christianity. 
Although  this  hypothesis  sets  out  from  a  point  of  view 
which  has  much  plausibility,  and  is,  indeed,  not  without  a 
considerable  degree  of  justification,  it  is  open  to  so  many 
serious  objections  that  it  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem  in  question.  It  has 
been  received  with  favor  by  many  Catholic  and  Protestant 
theologians  probably  in  part  for  the  reason  that  more 
than  either  of  the  other  two  theories  it  preserves  the 
dignity  of  the  evangelists  as  independent  writers,  and  at 
the  same  time  lends  to  their  differences  a  relatively  inno- 
cent appearance,  so  far  as  oral  tradition  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  must  offer  more  room  for  individual  variations.* 
Weiss  attributes  its  popularity  in  some  quarters  to  an 
apologetic  interest  which  is  zealous  in  denying  the  de- 
pendence of  the  evangelists  on  one  another,  or  on 
written  sources,  in  order  not  to  be  obliged  through  the 
establishment  of  either  of  these  hypotheses  too  directly  to 
acknowledge  the  human  origin  of  our  Gospels  and  the 
intentional  variations  of  one  writer  from  another.  As  the 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  357. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  141 

hypothesis  of  an  original  Gospel  when  developed  as  it 
was  by  its  advocates  explained  the  agreements  of  the  sev- 
eral writers  much  better  than  their  differences,  while  the 
assumed  dependence  on  written  sources  allowed,  perhaps, 
far  too  little  play  to  their  individuality,  that  of  an  oral 
original  Gospel  has  been  thought  to  account  for  the 
differences  while  leaving  the  similarities  unexplained. 

For  how,  asks  Baur,  can  we  make  it  intelligible  to  our- 
selves that  the  three  evangelists,  if  they  took  the  contents 
of  their  narratives  from  the  common  tradition,  should 
agree  as  they  do  not  only  in  the  matter,  but  also  literally 
in  the  expression?  Still  less  is  it  explicable  that  this 
agreement  is  again  only  partial  not  with  the  three  to- 
gether, but  only  with  two  of  them.  If  this  verbal  agree- 
ment of  only  two  evangelists  in  certain  cases  has  its 
ground  in  the  tradition,  then  there  must  have  been  dif- 
ferent branches  of  the  tradition.  But  if  the  tradition  was 
so  divided  as  we  find  it  in  every  such  case,  is  not  the  con- 
clusion to  be  drawn  that  it  was,  indeed,  something  so 
changeable  and  so  variously  modified  that  such  a  verbal 
agreement  as  exists  with  all  the  variations  in  a  great  part 
of  the  Gospel-history  must  be  the  greatest  of  riddles  ?  It 
cannot,  indeed,  be  denied  that  nothing  is  more  natural 
and  necessary  than  the  assumption  that  the  Gospel-history 
first  propagated  itself  through  oral  tradition,  which  may 
have  become  at  length  a  continuous  source  of  evangelic 
narratives.  Testimonies,  such  as  that  of  Papias,  show 
what  importance  was  attached  to  it  even  in  his  time,  when 
written  Gospels  were  already  in  existence.  But  to  refer 
all  the  antecedents  of  our  Gospels  to  oral  tradition  alone 
is  to  disregard  a  very  natural  inference  from  the  prologue 
to  Luke's  Gospel,  in  which  written  narratives  (sources  ?) 
are  expressly  mentioned.*  It  has  also  been  urged  against 

*  Kritische  Untersuch.,  etc.  p.  33. 


1 42  GOSPEL.  CRI TICISM. 

this  hypothesis  that  there  is  no  historical  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  standing  apostolical  tradition  as  it 
assumes ;  that  such  a  mechanism  of  memorizing  as  it 
requires  is  opposed  to  the  entire  spirit  and  activity  of 
the  times ;  that  the  want  of  agreement  in  the  synoptic 
narratives  of  the  most  important  events,  the  passion  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  is  irreconcilable  with  it ;  and  that 
the  chief  mass  of  the  synoptic  historical  material  is  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  presuppose  an  antecedent  literary  form.* 
Mr.  Norton  has  adopted  this  hypothesis,  and  given  it  an 
elaborate  exposition,  f  He  has  not,  however,  removed  the 
objections  which  lie  against  it.  Westcott  has  also  ad- 
vocated it,  but  with  no  better  results,  f 

4. — THE    COURSE    OF    MORE    RECENT    CRITICISM. 

The  synoptic  problem  was  apprehended  by  Schleier- 
macher  from  a  new  point  of  view.  Rejecting  the  dilemma 
by  which  previous  inquiries  had  been  limited,  that  there 
must  have  been  a  dependence  of  one  of  the  synoptists 
upon  another  or  an  original  source  for  all,  he  sought  to 
explain  the  synoptic  phenomena  by  the  assumption  of 
several  sources,  embracing  only  parts  of  the  history,  which 
were  variously  combined  by  the  three  writers  of  the  Gos- 
pels. The  oft-recurring  appearance  of  parts  of  the  his- 
tory which  are  common  to  two  or  three,  and  again  of 
parts  which  are  peculiar  to  one  or  two,  seemed  to  this  critic 
to  indicate  several  antecedent  sources  which  the  evange- 
lists had  partly  in  common,  partly  not,  while  the  devia- 
tions in  the  order  of  the  common  narrative  rendered 
improbable  the  assumption  of  an  original  writing  embra- 
cing the  entire  history.  The  application  of  this  hypoth- 

*  Holtzmann,  p.  358  ;  Meyer,  Commentar  iiber  das  N.  T.  i.  I,  p.  29. 
f  Gen.  of  the  Gospels,  i.  Additional  Notes,  p.  clxviii  f. 
\  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  etc.  chap.  iii. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  143 

esis,  however,  by  its  author  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  * 
which  he  broke  up  into  numerous  fragments,  did  not 
serve  to  commend  it  to  the  judgment  of  critics.  Baur 
has  characterized  this  criticism  of  the  Gospels  as  arbitrary, 
ingenious,  and,  on  the  whole,  resulting  in  dismemberment 
and  dissolution,  f  Schleiermacher  was,  however,  more 
successful  in  his  famous  treatise  on  the  Testimony  of 
Papias  as  to  our  first  two  Gospels,  \  in  which  he  argued 
that  our  first  Gospel  is  founded  on  a  collection  of  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  made  by  Matthew,  or  the  logia-collection 
of  Papias,  and  a  brief  work  by  Mark. 

De  Wette,  whose  position  has  been  characterized  as  one 
of  "  sceptical  indecision,"  apprehended  the  synoptic  prob- 
lem substantially  from  Griesbach's  point  of  view,  holding 
that  Mark's  Gospel  was  an  abridged  combination  of  the 
other  two.  §  He  cast  doubt  upon  the  apostolic  author- 
ship of  the  first  Gospel,  held  that  of  the  second  to  be 
uncertain,  and  as  to  the  third  evangelist  was  sure  only 
that  he  was  a  disciple  of  Paul.  To  John  he  accorded 
only  a  certain  share  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  the  compo- 
sition of  which  might  have  been  the  work  of  a  disciple 
of  that  apostle. 

The  mythical  view  of  the  Gospel-history  set  forth  by 
Strauss  in  his  celebrated  Life  of  Jesus  [  was  founded  on 
the  total  untrustworthiness  of  the  narratives  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  resulted  in  giving  a  new  impetus  to  scien- 
tific investigation  into  the  origin  of  the  Gospels.  Among 
the  writings  which  this  work  called  forth  that  of  Weisse  is 
one  of  the  most  important  not  only  for  its  intrinsic  merits 

*  Kritischer  Versuch  tiber  die  Schriften  des  Lukas,  1817. 

f  Krit.  Untersuch.  p.  35. 

\  Werke  zur  Theologie,  ii.  p.  361  f. 

§  Lehrbuch  der  hist-krit.  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  1826,  5th  ed.  1848. 

I  Das  Leben  Jesu,  ist  ed.  1835  ;  4th  ed.  1840. 


1 44  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

as  a  critical  treatise  on  the  Gospels,  but  also  for  the  influ- 
ence which  it  has  exerted.  *  Without  sympathy  with 
Schleiermacher's  predilection  for  the  fourth  Gospel, 
Weisse  adopted  in  part  the  former's  theory  of  the  syn- 
optics, and  modified  it  to  the  effect  that  the  writing 
by  Mark,  mentioned  by  Papias,  was  no  other  than  essen- 
tially our  canonical  second  Gospel ;  that  our  canonical 
first  Gospel  was  composed  from  this  and  the  logia-collec- 
tion  of  Matthew,  and  that  Luke  is  a  freer  revision  of  it. 
He  is  regarded  as  the  real  author  of  the  so-called  "  con- 
servative "  f  Mark-hypothesis. 

This  Mark-hypothesis  was  developed  in  a  more  radical 
way  by  Wilke,  £  who,  while  assuming  a  literary  depend- 
ence of  the  synoptists  on  one  another,  called  especial 
attention  to  the  influence  of  the  individual  reflections  of 
each  as  accounting  for  the  differences  in  their  narratives. 
His  conclusion  was  that  the  Gospels  "  are  formed  on  a 
literary  plan,  and  are  no  compositions  of  legend  or  of 
oral  tradition."  This  "  literary  plan  "  he  traced  to  a  writ- 
ten original  Gospel,  which  was  not  with  Eichhorn  to  be 
found  outside  the  canon,  but  was,  in  fact,  our  canonical 
Mark,  which  Luke  first  revised,  and  finally,  Matthew  with 
the  use  of  Luke's  record.  The  little  that  Mark  has  which 
is  not  found  in  the  other  two  records  he  regarded  as  later 
additions,  whereby  Hilgenfeld  thinks,  apparently  with- 
out good  reasons,  that  he  gave  the  death-thrust  to  his 
hypothesis.  § 

The  historical  criticism  of  Baur  marked  an  epoch  in  the 
study  of  the  New  Testament.  Setting  out  from  the  study 

*  Die  evangel.  Gesch.  kritisch  und  philosoph.  bearbeitet,  1838. 
f  Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.  p.  191. 

\  Der  Urevangelist,  oder  exegetisch-kritische  Untersuch.  der  Verwand- 
schafts-Verhaltnisse  der  drei  ersten  Evangelien,  1838. 
§  Kanon  und  Kritik,  p.  163. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  145 

of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Romans  and  the  Corinthi- 
ans, in  which  he  detected  the  strife  of  Jewish  Christianity 
and  Paulinism,  he  used  this  party-contest,  which  Semler 
had  noted  as  a  factor  in  the  formation  of  the  canon,  as  the 
key  to  the  problems  of  Gospel-criticism.  The  Gospels, 
which  Strauss  had  apprehended  as  the  naive  productions 
of  early  Christian  legend,  and  Wilke  as  works  of  literary 
reflection  and  intended  oppositions,  appeared  to  Baur  as 
products  of  those  partisan  strifes  and  of  their  overcoming 
and  adjustment  in  the  catholic  Church.  For  him  the 
criticism  which  places  the  Gospels  under  the  point  of  view 
of  tendency-writings  is  rightly  called  historical,  because  it 
makes  it  its  principal  task  to  transport  itself  into  the  times 
out  of  which  they  proceeded.  He  began  his  criticism  with 
the  fourth  Gospel,  which  he  regarded  as  an  ideal  com- 
position, a  tendency-writing,  which  originated  in  the  late 
transition-time  from  the  oppositions  of  the  Pauline  and 
Jewish-Christian  parties  to  their  final  accommodation  in 
the  catholic  Church  about  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. The  third  Gospel  was  a  purely  Pauline  writing  in 
the  original  form  in  which  Marcion  had  it,  but  in  its  revi- 
sion by  Luke  in  the  canonical  form  it  manifests  the  con- 
ciliatory tendency  which  appears  in  the  Acts.*  In  regard 
to  Mark,  he  accepted  the  theory  of  Griesbach,  that  it  was 
a  compilation  or  epitome  made  from  the  two  other  synop- 
tics. It  was  a  colorless  writing,  neutral  with  respect  to 
the  Pauline- Jewish  controversy,  and  did  not  even  possess 
independence.  The  first  Gospel  was  the  oldest,  and  in  it 
appears  the  original  Jewish-Christian  view  of  Christianity. 
It  received  its  present  form  about  the  year  i3O.f  If 

*  Baur's  opinions  on  Marcion's  Gospel  were  somewhat  modified  at  length 
by  Volkmar's  criticisms. 

f  Krit.  Untersuch.  uber  die  kan.  Evangel.  1847. 
10 


146  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

there  is,  said  Baur,  in  the  series  of  our  canonical  Gospels? 
one  in  which  we  have  the  substantial  contents  of  the  Gos- 
pel-history in  an  original,  genuinely  historical  source,  that 
can  only  be  Matthew's  Gospel.  But  he  held  that  even  in 
it  the  dogmatic  point  of  view  of  the  evangelist  had  influ- 
enced the  representation  of  the  facts.  Absolute  historical 
credibility  could  not,  certainly,  belong  to  a  writing  which 
was  a  later  revision  of  Matthew's  Hebrew  Gospel  with 
additions  from  tradition. 

That  Baur's  criticism  exceeded  the  right  measure  of 
moderation  was  conceded  by  some  of  the  ablest  of  the 
adherents  of  his  school.  His  position  on  the  fourth 
Gospel  has  been  ably  contested  by  conservative  scholars, 
and  representatives  of  the  critical  tendency  have  found  in 
the  history  of  the  canon  attestation  of  a  higher  antiquity 
of  the  Gospels  than  he  acknowledged.  Hilgenfeld  places 
Mark  before  Luke  as  a  Petrine  Gospel  representing  the 
transition  from  the  Jewish  Christianity  of  Matthew  to  the 
Paulinism  of  the  third  Gospel.  The  first  Gospel,  founded 
on  a  writing  by  Matthew  (not,  however,  a  mere  collection 
of  sayings  of  Jesus),  which  dates  from  the  sixth  decade  of 
the  first  century,  received,  according  to  him,  its  present 
form  through  a  free  revision  soon  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  The  Jewish-Christian  tendency  of  the  original 
was  counteracted  in  the  revision  in  the  interest  of  a  freer 
interpretation  of  Christianity,  and  shows  the  influence  of 
Pauline  ideas.  The  third  Gospel  arose  at  about  the  end 
of  the  first  century  out  of  a  Pauline  revision  of  the  first 
two  and  other  Gospel-writings.  Finally,  on  the  basis  of 
the  preceding  histories  of  Jesus  in  the  heat  of  the  Gnostic 
excitement  from  120-140,  the  fourth  Gospel  was  written 
by  an  unknown  author.*  The  author  of  this  theory  claims 

*  Die  Evangelien  nach  ihrer  Entstehung  und  geschichtlichen  Bedeutung, 
1854  :  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  1875. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  147 

for  it  that  it  shows  the  process  of  the  formation  of  the 
canonical  Gospels  to  have  begun  in  a  genuinely  historical 
basis  in  the  circles  and  age  of  the  original  apostles,  and 
to  have  passed  through  the  principal  phases  of  the  primi- 
tive Christian  consciousness. 

While  Schwegler  '••  and  Zeller  f  carried  out  the  theories 
of  the  Tubingen  school  with  considerable  fidelity  to  the 
principles  of  its  distinguished  founder,  Volkmar  developed 
the  tendency-idea  to  the  most  untenable  extremes.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  all  the  Gospels,  beginning  with  the  sup- 
posed original  Gospel  of  Mark,  are  purely  tendency-writings 
composed  in  the  interest  of  Paulinism,  which  was  sup- 
pressed at  first,  at  length  victorious.  Some  real  tradition 
from  primitive  apostolic  times  may  be  conceded  to  Mark, 
but  the  Gospel  is  not  a  writing  of  the  interpreter  of  Peter, 
but  a  Pauline  polemic  against  the  Jewish-Christian  tenden- 
cies of  the  Apocalypse.  The  third  Gospel  was  called  forth 
by  Judaistic  additions  to  the  original  Pauline  Gospel,  such 
as  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  in  Matthew,  and  the  saying  that 
Jesus  came  to  fulfil  the  law,  and  was  written  between  100 
and  105.  But  the  harmonizing,  Jewish-Christian-Pauline 
Gospel  was  that  of  Matthew,  erroneously  placed  first  in  the 
canon,  which  combines  the  other  two  with  an  eye  to  both 
parties  in  the  controversy.  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Logos," 
our  fourth,  he  places  at  155.  J 

Ewald  declared  a  war  of  extermination  against  all  that 
bore  the  name  of  tendency-criticism.  He  was  not,  how- 
ever, fortunate  in  his  complicated  scheme  of  Gospel- 

*  Das  nachap.  Zeitalter,  1846. 

f  Articles  in  Theol.  Jahrbticher,  1842-1857.  Die  Apostelgeschichte  nach 
ihrem  Inhalt,  etc.  1854.  Vortrage  und  Abhandlungeu,  etc.  1865. 

\  Die  Religion  Jesu  und  ihre  erste  Entwickelung,  etc.  1857.  Der  Ur- 
sprung  unserer  Evangelien,  etc.  1866.  Die  Evangelien,  oder  Marcus  und 
die  Synopsis  der  kan.  und  ausserkan.  Evang.  1870. 


148  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

building,  a  combination  of  the  conclusions  of  Eichhorn, 
Schleiermacher,  and  Weisse,  along  with  a  zealous  defence 
of  the  apostolical  origin  of  the  fourth  Gospel.*  His 
scheme  for  the  synoptics  is  the  following:  (i)  The  most 
ancient  Hebrew  Gospel  probably  by  Philip,  used  by 
Paul ;  (2)  the  logia-collection  by  Matthew ;  (3)  the  first  of 
the  complete  Gospels,  that  of  Mark,  not  our  canonical 
second  Gospel,  however,  but  an  older  writing  mentioned 
by  Papias  ;  (4)  the  first  book  of  the  "  higher  history/'  a 
new  edition  of  No.  I  ;  (5)  the  existing  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
founded  on  Mark  and  the  logia  ;  (6-8)  "  traces  of  a  sixth, 
seventh,  and  eighth  demonstrable  book  "  ;  (9)  Luke,  which 
concludes  the  development  of  the  Gospel-literature  by 
using  the  preceding  writings,  with  the  exception  of  Mat- 
thew, and  making  a  few  additions,  "  so  that  this  great 
work  has  still  more  than  our  present  Matthew  the  charac- 
ter of  a  mere  collection  without  much  inner  connection." 
This  wonderful  hypothesis  on  the  origin  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels  has  never  secured  the  approval  of  critics,  and 
could  not,  indeed,  make  its  way  with  all  its  arbitrary 
assumptions  and  want  for  the  most  part  of  historical 
support. 

Much  simpler  is  the  solution  of  Meyer,  the  eminent 
commentator  on  the  New  Testament.  He  reasons  that 
since  the  testimony  of  Papias  on  the  writing  of  Mark 
furnishes  no  reason  for  regarding  this  writing  as  different 
from  our  canonical  second  Gospel ;  since  our  Matthew  is 
not  identical  with  the  logia  which  tradition  ascribes  to 
this  apostle,  but  is  an  unapostolic  historical  work  which 
gradually  grew  out  of  this  original  writing  ;  since,  finally, 
Luke,  who  presupposes  an  evangelic  literature,  and  wrote 

*  Jahrbucher   der  biblischen   Wissenschaft,    1849-61.      Die   drei   ersten 
Evangelien,  etc.  1850.     Gesch.  Christus,  etc.  1855. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  149 

after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  must  in  any  case  be 
regarded  as  the  last  of  the  synoptists,  therefore  the  Gospel 
of  Mark  (all  theories  of  an  original  Mark  being  rejected  as 
untenable)  presents  itself  as  the  oldest  Gospel  and  the  de- 
termining standard  of  the  other  two  in  connection  with 
oral  tradition  and  other  writings  employed  as  sources. 
The  author  of  Mark  used  the  logia-collection  of  Matthew 
according  to  his  peculiar  purpose,  which  did  not  lead  him 
to  make  a  detailed  report  of  discourses.  As  the  original 
logia-collection  gradually  took  the  form  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  that  of  Mark  must  have  in- 
fluenced its  formation  in  respect  to  contents  and  the 
course  of  the  history.  At  length,  when  Matthew  was 
finally  edited  as  our  Greek  Gospel,  Mark  was  doubtless 
used  in  such  a  way  as  to  afford  an  explanation  of  the  fre- 
quent similarity  of  expressions  in  the  parts  common  to 
both.  Later,  again,  Luke  must  have  had  Mark  among 
his  sources  ;  and  so  the  way  in  which  the  latter  has  been 
used  has  given  rise  to  the  appearance  that  it  stood  be- 
tween the  other  two  as  dependent  and  a  mere  borrower. 
But  in  respect  to  this  appearance  great  injustice  has  been 
done  to  Mark  in  the  hypothesis  of  Griesbach,  particularly 
as  applied  by  De  Wette,  Baur,  Kostlin,  and  Bleek.  If, 
then,  along  with  oral  tradition,  the  logia  of  Matthew  and 
our  Mark  must  be  regarded  as  the  chief  written  sources 
of  our  first  Gospel,  to  which  latter  it  often  holds  the  rela- 
tion of  omitting  or  making  excerpts,  there  must  also  have 
been  other  Gospel-writings  which  were  used  in  the  com- 
position of  it.  Certainly  recognizable  are  such  single 
writings  in  the  genealogy  and  the  prehistorical  accounts, 
and  less  certainly  determinable,  yet  not  to  be  denied,  are 
they  in  the  further  course  of  the  history.* 

*  Krit.-exeget.  Commentar  liber  das  N.  T.  ste  Aufl.  1864,  i.  i,  p.  35  f. 


150  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

5. CONCLUSIONS    REGARDING    THE    SYNOPTIC    PROBLEM. 

In  the  foregoing  historical  survey  of  the  course  of  criti- 
cal inquiry  into  the  composition  and  relation  of  the 
synoptic  Gospels  no  attempt  has  been  made  at  complete- 
ness, and  the  works  of  many  distinguished  scholars  have 
not  been  mentioned.  Its  purpose  has  been  accomplished 
if  there  have  been  shown  certain  well-defined  and  per- 
sistent tendencies,  which  may  be  regarded  as  prophetic 
and  determinative  of  the  conclusions  which  this  inquiry 
has  reached  after  a  century's  investigation  and  discussion. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  that  neither  the  hypothesis 
of  the  use  of  the  work  of  one  evangelist  by  another  in 
any  form  whatever,  nor  that  of  an  original  Gospel,  nor 
that  of  oral  tradition,  has  been  able  to  maintain  itself  as 
alone  furnishing  an  adequate  solution  of  the  synoptic 
problem.  In  the  second  place,  the  course  of  criticism 
clearly  indicates  a  tendency  towards  a  combination  of 
some  of  the  features  of  the  hypotheses  of  Griesbach, 
Eichhorn,  and  Gieseler.  Finally,  there  is  manifested  in 
the  course  of  criticism  a  persistent  and  indomitable  ten- 
dency to  hold  to  the  priority  of  Mark,  and  to  regard  this 
Gospel,  along  with  the  original  logia-collection  of  Mat- 
thew, as  the  chief  source  of  the  first  Gospel  in  its  present 
form  and  of  Luke's  record.  Some  attempts  have,  how- 
ever, been  made  in  recent  times  to  revive  the  theory  of 
Griesbach,  for  example  by  Bleek  in  general  agreement 
with  De  Wette  and  by  Delitzsch,  Kahnis,  and  Nosgen  in 
a  dogmatic  interest. 

The  most  important  critical  investigations  of  the  first 
three  Gospels  in  recent  times  have  been  chiefly  occupied 
with  the  further  development  of  the  hypothesis  of  Weisse,* 
which,  as  has  been  shown,  assumes  the  dependence  of  our 

*  With  a  few  notable  exceptions,  particularly  Hilgenfeld. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  I  51 

canonical  Matthew  and  Luke  upon  Mark  regarded  as  an 
original  source.'"  Weiss  has  attempted  to  supplement 
and  correct  this  hypothesis  by  showing  that  the  oldest 
written  source,  Matthew's  logia,  was  not  merely,  as  has 
been  held  by  very  many  scholars  since  Schleiermacher,  a 
collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  but  contained  also  con- 
siderable narrative.  He  also  holds  that  this  writing  was 
known  to  Mark  and  used  by  him  in  the  composition  of 
his  Gospel.  The  solution  of  Holtzmann  was  somewhat 
different  in  his  work  on  the  synoptics  published  in  1863. 
He  concluded  that  it  was  not  our  present  Mark  which  lay 
at  the  basis  of  the  synoptic  narrative,  but  an  original 
Mark,  the  work  which  he  believed  to  have  been  referred 
to  by  Papias,  and  that  our  second  Gospel  was  derived 
from  it.  This  hypothesis  found  much  favor,  and  was 
adopted  by  Schenkel  in  his  life  of  Jesus,  and  by  other 
critics  of  note,  f  But  the  distinguishing  of  our  Mark 
from  the  supposed  original  Mark  presented  great  diffi- 
culties, and  Weiss  claims  to  have  detected  repeatedly  the 
untenableness  of  the  various  forms  which  the  hypothesis 

*  This  hypothesis  has  been  supported  in  some  of  its  various  forms  chiefly 
by  Weisse,  Die  evangel.  Gesch.  1838,  Die  Evangelienfrage,  1856  ;  Wilke, 
Der  Urevangelist,  1838  ;  Reuss,  Gesch.  der  heil.  Schr.  N.  T.  6te  Aufl. 
1887  ;  Ewald,  Die  drei  ersten  Evangel.  2te  Aufl.  1871  ;  Ritschl,  in  Theol. 
Jahrbiicher,  1851  ;  Reville,  Etudes  sur  1'Evangile  selon  Matthieu,  1862  • 
Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus,  I7me  ed.  1882,  Les  Evangiles,  1877  ;  Holtzmann, 
Die  Synoptischen  Evangelien,  1863,  Einleit.  1887  ;  Hausrath,  Neutest. 
Zeitgesch.  i.  1879  ;  Scholten,  Das  alteste  Evangel.  1869  ;  Jacobsen,  Unter- 
such.,  etc.  1883  ;  Volkmar,  Die  Evangel.  1870  ;  Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchris- 
tenthum,  1887,  with  the  order  Mark,  Luke,  Matthew  ;  Weizsacker,  Unter- 
such.,  etc.  1864  ;  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  1886  ;  Weiss,  Einleit.  1886  ; 
Bruckner,  Die  vier  Evangel.  1887. 

f  Weisse  and  Wilke  before  him  were  obliged  to  assume  that  a  form  of 
Mark  somewhat  different  from  our  present  second  Gospel  lay  before  Mat- 
thew and  Luke. 


2  $  2  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

has  taken  in  the  hands  of  its  advocates,  Beyschlag,  Schol- 
ten,  Weizsacker,  and  others.  Holtzmann  himself  appears 
practically  to  have  abandoned  it  at  length,  *  and  besides, 
to  hold  with  Wendt,  Jacobsen,  Mangold,  and  others  that 
Matthew  was  known  to  Luke,  and  used  by  him  at  least  in 
a  subsidiary  way.  f 

It  is  conceded,  however,  that  the  first  Gospel  contains 
indications  of  great  antiquity,  since  it  has  words  ascribed 
to  Jesus  which  clearly  show  an  intention  apparently  held 
during  a  greater  part  of  the  Galilean  period  of  his  minis- 
try to  confine  his  work  within  the  limits  and  to  the  law 
and  customs  of  Judaism.  The  declaration  that  he  is  sent 
only  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  and  the  in- 
junction to  his  disciples  to  go  only  to  these,  are  found  in 
no  other  Gospel.  The  same  is  true  of  the  saying  that  he 
came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil  the  law  and  the 
prophets.  \  It  is  questioned  whether  these  features  are 
really  historical  which  represent  the  mission  of  Jesus  as  a 
development  of  Judaism,  or  are  to  be  charged  to  the 
acknowledged  fact  that  this  Gospel  was  intended  for  and 
adapted  to  the  Jewish  Christians.  Their  original  charac- 
ter appears  in  most  cases  to  be  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
the  other  evangelists  show  traces  of  either  intentionally 
omitting  the  passages  or  mitigating  their  force.  Although 
these  features  of  originality  appear  in  the  first  Gospel, 
they  are  overbalanced  by  certain  decisive  marks  of  a  later 
and  derivative  origin.  For  criticism  finds  the  representa- 
tion of  the  history  to  rest  upon  an  arrangement  of  the  ma- 
terial according  to  the  subject-matter,  which  is  carried  out 
through  most  of  the  narrative,  an  artificial  grouping  of  it 
which  is  dominated  by  a  certain  numerical  symbolism  of 
the  genuine  Jewish  sort,  as  twice  seven  numbers  of  three 

*  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  357.      f  Weiss,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  485. 
\  Chap.  xv.  24,  x.  6,  v.  17. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  153 

generations,  three  temptations  in  the  desert  and  in  Geth- 
semane,  seven  parables,  seven  woes,  etc.  A  work  show- 
ing throughout  so  systematic  an  arrangement,  so  much 
reflection  and  art  in  selection  and  composition,  could 
hardly  be  the  first  record  of  the  evangelic  history.* 

On  the  contrary,  the  priority  of  Mark  is  capable  of  being 
shown  with  great  probability,  not  so  much  by  a  detailed 
comparison  of  parallel  passages  and  in  a  mechanical  way 
as  by  a  study  of  his  entire  conception  and  plan  of  the 
history.  It  has  been  shown  with  tolerable  clearness  that 
in  Mark  the  whole  narrative  is  presented  in  its  simplest, 
fundamental  form.  In  fact,  it  is  only  in  his  Gospel  that 
the  great  epochs  of  the  Galilean  ministry  of  Jesus  can  be 
shown  with  clearness.  In  this  respect  he  alone  represents 
the  unity  of  the  historical  course  of  events  which  runs 
through  the  synoptical  narratives,  and  has  preserved  their 
historical  thread.  If  we  take  the  succession  of  single  nar- 
ratives in  Mark,  and  place  on  one  side  that  in  Matthew 
and  on  the  other  that  in  Luke,  we  can  demonstrate  step 
by  step  that  each  of  the  two  others  presupposes  this  as 
the  original  one.f  With  this  theory  that  Mark  is  the 
oldest  of  the  Gospels  agree  the  distinguishing  internal 
character  of  his  record,  the  absence  of  all  that  is  prehis- 
torical,  the  immediate  beginning  of  the  history  with  the 
appearance  of  the  Baptist,  the  undeveloped  account  of 
the  temptation,  the  freedom  from  legendary  interpolations 
in  the  history  of  the  passion  which  are  found  in  Matthew, 
the  objectivity  without  theological  intention  and  method, 
and  especially  the  character  of  the  immediate  vivacity, 
picturesqueness,  and  clearness  of  the  delineations  and 
descriptions.^: 

Of  especial  significance  in  favor  of  Mark's   originality 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  366.  f  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  367. 

\  Meyer,  Commentar,  i.  p.  36. 


154  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

and  priority  is  thought  to  be  the  consistent  and  steady 
progress  in  his  narrative  with  reference  to  Jesus'  procla- 
mation of  himself  as  the  Messiah,  in  contrast  with  the 
confused  and  contradictory  delineation  of  Matthew.  In 
Mark  it  is  neither  John  the  Baptist  nor  the  disciples  who 
first  recognize  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  but  the  demo- 
niacs.* An  injunction  of  silence  is  laid  upon  them  even 
after  they  have  once  proclaimed  him  before  a  multitude. 
A  similar  reserve  is  practised  in  the  cure  of  the  blind  man 
at  Bethsaida,  and  in  two  other  cases  which  have  parallels 
in  Matthew,  f  In  both  cases  Matthew  omits  the  injunc- 
tion of  silence,  apparently  because  in  his  narrative  Jesus 
is  openly  proclaimed  as  Messiah  from  the  beginning.  In 
these  omissions  the  dependence  and  secondary  character 
of  Matthew's  record  are  thought  to  be  indicated,  and  still 
more  is  this  the  case  in  places  in  which  he  appears  to 
forget  his  part,  as  when  Jesus  having  healed  a  leper  in  the 
presence  of  a  great  multitude,  the  injunction  to  tell  no  one 
is  subjoined  !  But  according  to  Mark  the  cure  is  privately 
performed  in  a  house.  :f  Still  more  striking  is  it  that  just 
before  the  choice  of  the  apostles  Jesus  heals  many,  ac- 
cording to  Mark,  and  lays  on  the  demons  the  injunction  of 
silence,  while  Matthew  abbreviates  the  account  to  the 
effect  that  many  followed  Jesus,  and  he  healed  them  all, 
and  enjoined  them  to  tell  no  one !  §  Yet  already  his 
healing  power  had  been  represented  as  publicly  known.  ] 
Here  Matthew  appears  to  have  retained  a  sentence  of  his 
original  with  an  incorrect  reference,  so  that  his  account 
becomes  unintelligible.  Again,  only  in  Mark  does  Jesus' 

*Chap.  i.  24,  34,  v.  7. 

f  Chap.  viii.  22-26,  v.  45,  vii.  36  ;  cf.   Matt.  ix.  26,  33. 
•  \  Matt.  viii.  4  ;  Mark  i.  43,  ^eftaXsv,  sent  him  out  [of  the  house]. 
§  Mark  Hi.  10-12  ;  Matt.  xii.  15,  16. 
|  Chap.  iv.  23-25,  ix.  26,  31,  33,  35. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  155 

saying  to  Peter  when  the  latter  proclaimed  him  have  con- 
sistency, while  in  Matthew  the  apostles  are  represented  as 
all  along  familiar  with  the  idea  of  his  Messiahship.  In 
dealing  with  elements  which  constitute  the  kernel  of  the 
Gospel-history,  there  can  hardly  be  any  question  whether 
priority  and  originality  belong  to  the  writer,  who  with 
consistency  and  unbroken  purpose,  carries  out  an  idea,  or 
to  the  one  who  represents  the  matter  now  in  a  self-contra- 
dictory way  and  now  in  opposition  to  the  peculiarity  of 
the  other. * 

A  similar  phenomenon  is  presented  in  the  representa- 
tions by  the  two  evangelists  of  the  ability  of  the  disciples 
to  understand  Jesus.  Mark  carries  out  with  great  con- 
sistency the  idea  of  their  slowness  of  apprehension,  while 
Matthew  in  many  cases  presents  the  opposite  conception, 
and  again,  apparently  influenced  by  Mark's  narrative,  falls 
into  agreement  with  him.  In  respect  to  comprehending 
the  parable  of  the  sower,  Matthew  represents  the  disciples 
as  those  who  have  and  to  whom  more  shall  be  given, 
while  in  Mark  they  appear  as  not  comprehending  the 
parable  at  all  and  in  peril  of  being  deprived  of  what  they 
have,  f  At  the  stilling  of  the  tempest  both  evangelists, 
indeed,  represent  the  disciples  as  having  little  faith,  but  in 
Matthew  the  words,  "  Who  then  is  this  that  the  winds 
and  the  sea  obey  him?"  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
people,  while  in  Mark  it  is  the  disciples  to  whom  they  are 
attributed.  £  In  like  manner,  in  the  account  of  the  walk- 
ing of  Jesus  on  the  water,  Matthew  makes  the  disciples 
confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  while  Mark  repre- 
sents them  as  without  insight  and  hard  of  heart.  §  The 

*  Ritschl,  Theol.  Jahrbucher,  1852,  p.  515. 

f  Matt.  xiii.  n,  12  ;  Mark  iv.  13,  25,  29. 

\  Matt.  viii.  27  ;  Mark  iv.  41  ;   Meyer,  Commentar  in  loc. 

§  Matt.  xiv.  33  ;  Mark  vi.  51  f. 


1 56  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

unfitting  request  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  is  ascribed  by 
Mark  to  these  disciples  themselves,  but  by  Matthew  to 
their  mother,  while  the  latter  follows  Mark  in  representing 
Christ's  answer  as  addressed  to  the  sons,  wherein  it  would 
appear  that  he  added  the  mother's  part  in  the  interest  of 
his  theory  of  the  insight  of  the  disciples,  and  in  so  doing 
confused  the  narrative. 

The  oldest  source  of  the  Gospel-history,  the  apostolical 
writing  by  Matthew  in  Aramaic  referred  to  by  Papias, 
was  undoubtedly  used  along  with  Mark  by  the  first  evan- 
gelist, and  there  is  a  very  strong  probability  that  it  was 
also  used  by  Luke.  Favorable  to  this  latter  theory  is  the 
fact  that  Matthew  and  Luke  have  many  fragments  of 
discourses  in  common  which  are  not  found  in  Mark. 
These  are  so  similiar  in  details  of  expression  as  to  indi- 
cate that  they  were  taken  from  a  common  source.  *  The 
"  great  interpolation  "  in  the  midst  of  Luke's  narrative,  \ 
by  which  his  agreement  with  Mark,  whom  he  follows  to 
this  point,  is  interrupted,  and  the  common  thread  of  the 
narrative  broken,  furnishes  an  illustration.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  the  greater  part  of  the  discourses  which 
Luke  isolates  in  this  section  are  found  in  Matthew  in 
different  relations  so  as  not  to  form  sections,  but  to  be 
brought  into  an  already  existing  connection  which  they 
fill  out  along  with  sentences  from  Mark.  In  the  sermon 
on  the  mount  in  Matthew  a  collection  of  sayings,  probably 
spoken  at  different  times,  is  given  the  appearance  of  a 
single  discourse  of  instructions  to  the  disciples.  Again, 
seven  parables  are  grouped  together  according  to  the 
writer's  favorite  numerical  symbolism.  \  If  we  compare 
the  sermon  on  the  mount  in  Matthew  with  Luke,  chapter 

*  For  example,  the  unusual  word,  krtiovGiov,  Matt.  vi.  1 1  ;  Luke  xi.  3. 
f  Chap.  ix.  51 — xviii.  14.  |  Matt.  xiii. 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  157 

vi.,  it  will  appear  that  the  former  inserts  some  passages  in 
the  great  discourse  which  Luke  alone  appears  to  have  in 
their  right  connection,  since  in  the  latter  they  follow 
words  which  give  occasion  for  them.  *  The  series  of 
ayings  concerning  anxiety  and  the  laying  up  of  treas- 
ures appears  in  Luke  in  connection  with  a  logical  motive, 
but  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount  detached,  without  motive, 
and  in  a  reversed  order,  f  A  large  number  of  similar  illus- 
trations might  be  quoted.  There  is  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion on  the  question  whether  the  apothegms  and  short 
discourses  which  Luke  presents  detached  and  scattered 
were  by  him  torn  out  of  the  "architectonic  structures  "  of 
Matthew,  or  appear  in  his  record  in  their  original  relations. 
Which  is  the  more  probable,  asks  Holtzmann,  that  Luke 
wantonly  shattered  the  great  structures  and  scattered  the 
fragments  to  the  four  winds,  or  that  out  of  what  lay 
before  the  former  as  heaps  of  stones  Matthew  constructed 
these  walls  ?  To  this  critic  the  true  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem appears  to  be  that  Luke  had  the  source  from  which 
Matthew  constructed  his  compositions  of  the  discourses, 
but  that  to  the  former  does  not  belong  in  all  cases  the 
priority  in  the  framing  of  the  single  discourses  and  say- 
ings. The  suggestion  of  Strauss  appears  to  come  of  a 
clear  insight :  "  The  pithy  sayings  of  Jesus  could  not, 
indeed,  be  dissolved  by  the  flood  of  the  oral  tradition,  but 
were,  perhaps,  not  seldom  torn  from  their  natural  connec- 
tion, floated  away  from  their  original  strata,  and  landed 
like  fragments  of  rock  in  places  where  they  did  not  really 
belong."  The  hypothesis  accordingly  appears  reasonable 
that  in  the  earliest  tradition  the  sayings  of  Jesus  were 
handed  down  only  as  isolated  fragments,  and  not  until 

*Matt.  vi.  7-13,  vii.  7-11  ;  Luke  xi.  1-13. 
f  Luke  xii.  22-34  5  Matt.  vi.  19-21,  25-34. 


158  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

later  were  inquiries  raised  as  to  the  occasions  which  gave 
rise  to  them.  In  some  cases  these  inquiries  appear  to 
have  been  fruitless,  so  that  it  remains  unknown  what  were 
the  circumstances  to  which  are  to  be  referred  the  woes 
pronounced  upon  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin,  the  allusion  to 
the  sacrificed  Galileans  and  the  tower  of  Siloam.  Accord- 
ingly, Holtzmann  is  led  to  conjecture  that  in  the  source  in 
question,  the  original  logia,  the  fragments  followed  one 
another  as  do  the  aphorisms  in  Hippokrates,  since  on  no 
other  supposition  can  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  which  have 
no  fixed  place  in  the  Gospel-history,  appear  in  Matthew  at 
one  point  of  their  wandering  and  in  Luke  at  another. 

Notwithstanding  the  objections  of  Wendt,  Weiss'  posi- 
tion, previously  referred  to,  that  the  logia-source  was 
known  to  Mark  appears  to  be  well  taken.  Assuming  the 
entire  independence  of  this  Gospel  as  to  the  first  and 
third,  it  is  difficult  to  explain  its  origin  without  supposing 
the  use  of  a  written  source.  The  discourse  on  the  Pa- 
rousia*  is  far  too  extended  to  have  been  propagated  by 
oral  tradition,  and  shows  to  a  critical  analysis  a  series  of 
insertions  and  additions  which  are  so  much  opposed  to  an 
original  form  of  it  that  it  must  have  been  known  to  the 
author  in  a  written  form.  The  fragments  of  the  discourse 
of  Jesus  in  his  own  defence  against  the  charge  that  he  was 
in  league  with  Beelzebub,  of  that  on  the  occasion  of  send- 
ing out  his  disciples,  and  of  that  regarding  the  strife  for 
precedence  on  the  part  of  two  of  the  twelve,  f  may  with 
more  reason  than  in  the  preceding  case  be  thought  to  rest 
upon  oral  tradition.  But  it  has  been  pointed  out  that  in 
spite  of  the  greater  freedom  with  which  these  are  repro- 
duced in  comparison  with  the  original  tradition  in  the 
older  source,  their  verbal  expression  shows  so  great  a 

*  Chap.  xiii.  f  Chap.  iii.  23—39,  v^  7~ir»  x-  42~45- 


THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  159 

similarity  with  that  of  the  logia  preserved  in  the  first 
and  third  Gospels  that  they  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
constructed  independently  of  that  document.  Nearly  all 
the  sayings  preserved  by  Mark  outside  the  immediate 
connection  of  his  narrative  may  be  traced  to  reminis- 
cences of  discourses  and  series  of  apothegms  whose  exis- 
tence in  the  logia  may  be  shown  with  great  probability, 
and  the  same  is  true  of  the  verbal  expression  in  these 
cases.  It  is  difficult  to  think  of  the  parables  preserved  in 
Mark  as  independent  of  those  contained  in  the  logia- 
source.  The  parable  of  the  mustard-seed  is  apparently  a 
graphic  transformation  of  the  first  parable  of  the  pair  from 
the  logia  in  Luke.*  Of  the  parable  of  the  sower  there  is 
a  far  simpler  and  more  original  statement  in  the  source,  f 
and  the  simile  of  the  kingdom  of  God  drawn  from  the 
sower  is  a  transformation  of  a  parable  in  the  first  Gospel.  \ 
The  only  other  parable  which  Mark  has,  that  of  the  labor- 
ers in  the  vineyard,  must  have  been  derived  from  the 
source  in  question,  since  the  text  in  Matthew  appears  to 
be  more  original,  §  and  the  interpretation  which  is  retained 
is  in  conflict  with  the  application  borrowed  from  Mark.  || 
In  the  source  it  may  have  been  one  of  a  pair  of  parables 
with  that  of  the  marriage-feast,  which  the  first  evangelist 
connects  with  it.  T 

It  is  perhaps  needless  to  pursue  into  greater  detail  the 
discussion  of  the  synoptic  problem.  Even  if  the  logia- 
source  be  not  established  in  the  third  Gospel,  the  depend- 
ence of  the  latter  on  Mark  is  hardly  open  to  question  ; 

*  Chap.  iv.  30  f.  ;  Luke  xiii.  18-21. 

f  Chap.  iv.  3-9  ;  Luke  viii.  5-8. 

\  Chap.  iv.  26-29  5  Matt.  xiii.  24-30. 

§Chap.  xii.  1-9;  Matt.  xxi.  3341. 

||  Matt.  xxi.  43. 

^[  Matt.  xxii.  1-14  ;  Weiss,  Einleitung. 


1 60  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

and  if  we  leave  undetermined  the  question  whether  or  no 
its  author  used  the  first  Gospel,  it  would  appear  that  we 
have  in  the  relations  of  writings  and  documents  already 
set  forth  ample  means  for  the  explanation  of  the  synoptic 
phenomena,  so  far  as  they  are  capable  of  explanation. 
The  logia-source  written  by  Matthew  and  understood 
according  to  Schleiermacher's  interpretation  of  Papias  and 
the  priority  of  Mark  which  may  be  regarded  as  an  incon- 
testable conclusion  of  recent  Gospel-criticism  furnish  the 
key  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  relation  of  the 
synoptic  Gospels.  The  agreements  and  similarities  in  the 
three  records  find  an  adequate  explanation  in  the  use  by 
the  first  and  third  evangelists  of  these  two  sources.  The 
differences  in  the  records  are  to  be  explained  by  the  de- 
pendence of  the  writers  to  some  extent  on  oral  tradition 
and  uncanonical  written  sources  and  by  the  individuality 
and  literary  independence  of  each. 

Those  readers  who  shall  have  had  the  patience  to  study 
the  foregoing  review  of  the  course  of  investigation  of  the 
synoptic  question  will  not  fail  to  see  the  importance  of 
the  discussion  of  it  to  Gospel-criticism  and  the  connection 
of  the  problem  with  many  inquiries  with  which  this  is 
concerned. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK. 

THAT  our  second  canonical  Gospel  originated  with  a 
certain  John  Mark  is  the  unanimous  testimony  of 
tradition.  While  this  testimony  is  too  vague  to  afford 
precise  information  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  his 
connection  with  the  composition  of  the  writing,  it  par- 
ticularizes the  circumstance  that  he  was  intimately  asso- 
ciated with  the  Apostle  Peter.*  Through  Barnabas,  to 
whom  he  appears  to  have  been  related  by  blood,  he  came 
into  connection  with  Paul,  and  was  the  occasion  of  a  dis- 
pute and  separation  between  these  two  missionaries.f 
The  tradition  of  his  connection  with  Peter  runs  back  to 
Papias,  who  depended,  it  appears,  on  a  certain  presbyter 
John  for  his  information,  according  to  whom  Mark  wrote 
down,  so  far  as  he  remembered  them  and  without  order, 
the  sayings  and  doings  of  Jesus  as  he  had  heard  them 
from  Peter.  This  tradition  is  largely  dependent,  as  to  its 
historical  worth,  upon  the  degree  in  which  it  is  confirmed 
by  a  critical  analysis  of  the  Gospel.  In  some  respects  the 
account  of  Papias  corresponds  very  well  with  the  phe- 

*  Pupil,  companion,  and  interpreter.  Whether  by  this  last  term  we  are 
to  understand,  according  to  some  critics,  a  linguistic  assistant,  or,  according 
to  others,  a  clerk,  is  not  important.  See  Acts  xii.  12  ;  I.  Peter  v.  13. 
There  appears  to  be  no  good  reason  for  the  conjecture  of  Grotius,  Schleier- 
macher,  and  others  that  two  persons  of  the  name  of  Mark  are  to  be  distin- 
guished in  the  New  Testament. 

f  Acts  xii.  25,  xv.  37  ff. 

ii  161 


162  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

nomena  which  the  record  presents.  For  this  Gospel  is 
distinguished  in  some  parts  among  the  synoptics  for  a 
vivid  and  life-like  delineation  which  suggests  the  eye- 
witness. Among  its  peculiarities  have  been  noticed  a 
predilection  for  the  story  and  the  inner  life  of  the  disciples 
and  a  proportionally  large  number  of  narratives  in  which 
they  are  immediately  concerned,  particularly  the  three 
confidential  friends  of  Jesus.  The  entire  first  part  of  the 
Gospel  concerns  affairs  of  which  the  first  visit  of  Jesus  at 
Peter's  house  forms  the  centre,  and  the  climax  is  reached 
in  the  graphic  scene  of  the  Messianic  confession  of  this 
apostle,  who  finally  is  especially  mentioned  at  the  close 
of  the  record,  as  one  to  whom  the  risen  Christ  would  show 
himself. 

To  the  objection  that  the  testimony  of  the  presbyter 
John  does  not  apply  to  our  canonical  Mark,  since  this 
does  not  show  the  want  of  order  (recall)  which  he  remarked 
in  the  writing  of  which  Papias  speaks  on  his  authority  in 
Eusebius'  account,*  it  should  be  said  that  his  judgment 
in  the  matter  must  be  considered  from  his  own  point  of 
view.  If  he  judged  it  in  this  regard  from  a  comparison 
of  it  with  an  arrangement  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in 
another  work  known  to  him,  and  that  writing  were  the 
logia-collection  of  Matthew,  it  can  only  be  concluded  that 
in  his  opinion  the  order  of  the  latter  was  the  more  origi- 
nal, as  indeed  it  may  have  been  if  it  contained,  as  some 
scholars  suppose,  along  with  the  discourses  of  Jesus  some 
slight  connecting  and  explanatory  narrative.  Such  a  work, 
written  by  an  eye-witness,  might,  even  though  it  were  very 
brief,  have  better  answered  than  Mark's  record  to  the 
presbyter's  conception*  of  the  true  order  of  the  course  of 
events.  The  worth  of  his  judgment  must  also  be  deter- 

*  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO   MARK.  163 

mined  to  some  extent  by  the  consideration  that  he  could 
have  had  no  very  accurate  knowledge  of  the  actual  order 
of  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  Davidson,  whose  advo- 
cacy of  the  Griesbach-hypothesis  necessitates  the  placing 
of  the  composition  of  Mark  after  that  of  the  two  other 
synoptics,  denies  the  applicability  of  the  presbyter's  testi- 
mony to  our  canonical  second  Gospel,  because  it  is  as  much 
an  orderly  narrative  as  either  of  the  others,  as  if  the  presby- 
ter had  given  any  intimation  of  a  knowledge  of  these,  or 
could,  indeed,  have  had  any  acquaintance  with  them  !  * 

While  a  critical  analysis  of  the  Gospel  shows  that  the 
judgment  of  the  presbyter  and  Papias  as  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus  is  correct,  since 
such  an  analysis  results  in  finding  that  the  evangelist  in 
setting  down  from  memory  the  teachings  of  Peter  has 
rather  followed  an  order  determined  by  the  subject- 
matter  than  attempted  a  strictly  chronological  account, 
there  is  no  reason  for  regarding  the  tradition  as  an  ex- 
haustive and  conclusive  statement  of  the  origin  of  the 
record  in  question.f  The  entire  literary  character  of  the 
Gospel  is  incompatible  with  the  theory  that  its  author 
was  a  mere  clerk,  who  slavishly  followed  the  preaching  of 
Peter.  If  we  may  judge  of  the  character  of  the  preaching 
of  this  apostle  from  the  record  of  it  in  the  Acts,  this  Gos- 

*  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  New  Testament,  ii.  p.  80. 

f  The  tradition  has  internal  and  external  evidences  of  trustworthiness. 
But  a  knowledge  of  the  natural  history  of  traditions  warns  us  not  to  receive 
them  uncritically.  One  form  of  this  tradition,  for  example,  represents 
Mark  as  having  written  after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  from  another  we 
learn  that  Peter  was  alive  when  the  evangelist  composed  his  record,  and 
that  he  appeared  quite  indifferent  to  the  work,  neither  hindering  nor 
encouraging  it.  Again,  the  latter  tradition  has  no  support  in  the  evident 
relation  of  the  synoptics,  since  it  places  first  the  composition  of  the  Gos* 
pels  containing  the  genealogies,  thus  putting  the  writing  of  Mark's  record 
after  that  of  Luke's. 


1 64  GOSPEL.  CRI  riCISM. 

pel  is  far  from  being  a  reproduction  of  it.  The  extended 
discourse  on  the  Parousia  and  several  series  of  sayings 
besides  can  hardly  have  been  carried  in  the  memory 
either  of  Peter  or  his  interpreter,  and  are  probably  free 
compositions.  There  are  some  sections  which  find  their 
most  probable  explanation  by  the  hypothesis  that  pithy 
sayings  of  Jesus  which  were  well  adapted  to  be  remem- 
bered were  set  down  without  regard  in  all  cases  to  the 
circumstances  which  called  them  forth.  The  tradition  is 
doubtless  accounted  for  and  satisfied  by  the  supposition 
that  the  teaching  of  Peter  as  Mark  remembered  its  salient 
features  was  one  of  the  sources  of  the  Gospel,  while  there 
is  nothing  irreconcilable  with  it  in  the  assumption  that 
other  sources  which  may  have  been  available  were  also 
used.  If  we  waive  the  claim  of  those  critics  who  find  that 
the  author  made  extracts  from  Matthew's  logia,  there 
remain  the  abundant  oral  tradition  from  which  he  may 
have  drawn  and,  perhaps,  his  own  knowledge  as  an  eye- 
witness of  the  closing  scenes  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 

There  is  great  probability  that  the  fragments  which 
form  the  series  of  narratives  which  Mark  may  have  elabo- 
rated from  suggestions  received  in  listening  to  the  instruc- 
tions of  Peter  were  not  only  connected  by  passages  sup- 
plied by  himself,  but  even  enlarged  by  additions  from 
other  sources.  A  critical  study  of  the  discourse  on  the 
Parousia  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  previously  referred  to 
and  a  comparison  of  it  with  the  parallels  in  the  first  and 
third  Gospels  have  convinced  many  critics  of  the  first 
rank  that  it  contains  two  different  and  independent  sec- 
tions, one  of  which  is  probably  a  fragment  of  a  current 
Jewish  apocalyptic  composition.*  In  connection  with  the 

*Chap.  xiii.  1-6,  gb-13,  21-23,  28,  29,  32-37.  See  Colani,  Jesus  Christ 
et  les  Croyances,  etc.,  1864;  Weizsacker,  Untersuchungen,  etc.  1864; 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK.  165 

words  of  Jesus  regarding  divorce  is  inserted  the  statement 
peculiar  to  Mark  that  "  if  she  [the  wife]  put  away  her  hus- 
band and  marry  another  she  committeth  adultery."  This 
passage  is  of  questionable  originality,  and  appears  to  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  a  reference  to  a  custom  among  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  regarding  divorce.  *  A  Jewish  woman 
could  not  divorce  her  husband.  The  account  of  the  wid- 
ow's mite  has  been  thought  by  some  critics  to  present  a 
difficulty  if  regarded  as  history,  since  Jesus  could  hardly 
have  known  that  the  amount  which  she  put  into  the  treas- 
ury constituted  her  whole  living.  But  as  Jesus  elsewhere 
relates  parables  as  if  they  were  historical  narratives,  f  it  is 
probable  that  this  was  originally  a  parable  which  Mark, 
because  it  was  not  designated  as  parabolical,  took  for  his- 
tory, and  so  represented  it. 

The  relation  of  this  Gospel  to  the  first  is  a  much  con- 
tested question,  and  has  already  been  considered  briefly 
in  the  chapter  on  the  synoptic  problem.  A  few  consider- 
ations should,  however,  be  added  here.  Some  sayings  of 
Jesus  in  the  second  Gospel  appear  to  show  a  dependence 
on  their  parallels  in  the  first,  and  cannot,  indeed,  be 
regarded  as  framed  without  reference  to  them.  Notwith- 
standing the  great  freedom  with  which  they  are  given, 
and  the  appearance  which  they  present  of  resting  on  an 
independent  oral  tradition,  a  critical  comparison  of  their 
phraseology  with  that  of  the  parallels  indicates  a  contact 

Pfleiderer,  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol.,  1868  ;  Weiffenbach,  Der  Wieder- 
kunftsgedanke  Jesu,  1873  ;  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  i.  1886.  See  Chapter 
VIII.  of  this  work. 

*  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  i.  p.  40  ;  Meyer,  Commentar,  i.  2,  p.  140. 
Baur  regards  the  passage  as  a  reflection  of  Mark  regarding  the  equality  of 
the  sexes,  but  it  is  more  probably  referable  to  his  acquaintance  with  the 
Roman  custom. 

f  Chap.  iv.  3,  xii.  i. 


166  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

of  the  author  with  the  latter,  even  though  only  through 
memory.*  The  saying  of  Jesus  given  in  chapter  ix.  35, 
and  again  in  x.  43,  shows  on  comparing  it  with  its  parallel 
that  it  is  given  once  with  a  certain  independence -and 
again  as  if  a  recollection  of  the  phraseology  of  the  parallel 
had  influenced  the  form  of  statement.  So  in  chapter 
x.  46-52,  although  there  is  an  appearance  of  independence, 
a  trace  is  observed  of  a  recollection  of  the  phraseology  of 
Matt.  ix.  27-31.  The  mere  reference  to  the  temptation 
of  Jesus  is  generally  regarded  as  presupposing  an  ac- 
quaintance with  an  account  of  it  more  in  detail.  The  un- 
deniably secondary  character  of  some  passages  in  Mark  is, 
then,  opposed  to  the  hypothesis  of  its  priority.  This  fact 
led  Wilke  to  assume  later  additions  to  Mark,  Weisse  to 
the  hypothesis  that  certain  passages  which  the  other  two 
Gospels  contain  over  Mark  originally  stood  in  the  latter, 
and  Holtzmann  to  his  former  theory  of  an  original  Mark. 
The  hypothesis,  however,  that  Mark  was  acquainted  with 
and  indirectly  at  least  used  the  logia-source  of  the  first 
Gospel  explains  the  secondary  character  of  many  of  his 
passages,  and  solves  some  of  the  principal  difficulties  of 
the  problem.  At  all  events,  no  solution  is  practicable 
which  attempts  to  explain  the  phenomena  in  question  by 
the  mere  dependence  of  one  of  the  synoptists  upon  one 
or  both  of  the  others.  Mark's  record,  then,  appears  to  be 
the  oldest  Gospel,  though  not  the  oldest  writing  dealing 
with  the  Gospel-history. 

Some  of  the  more  extended  historical  passages  may 
very  likely  have  been  derived  from  oral  tradition.  The 
detail  with  which  some  of  these  are  presented  is  foreign 
to  the  later  tradition  as  it  appears  in  the  first  and  third 
Gospels,  and  has  been  thought  to  denote  the  antiquity  of 

*  Weiss,  Das  Marcusevangelium,  1872,  p.  n. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK.  1 67 

that  which  is  here  preserved.  The  account  of  the  minis- 
try of  the  Baptist ;  of  the  baptism  and  temptation  of 
Jesus  ;  of  the  storm  on  the  lake  ;  of  the  raising  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus  ;  of  the  first  feeding  of  the  multitude  ; 
of  the  transfiguration,  and  the  healing  of  the  demoniac 
which  immediately  follows  it,  present  now  in  brevity,  now 
in  vivid  detail,  the  appearance  of  originality.  In  the 
second  account  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude  the  simi- 
larity of  the  circumstances  with  those  of  the  former  leads 
to  the  belief  that  it  is  a  duplicate  narrative  of  the  same 
event,  and  that  its  repetition  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
writer  had  two  traditions  before  him  with  different  state- 
ments of  the  numbers  of  the  multitude.  The  tendency 
to  such  a  change  of  numbers  in  the  current  tradition  is 
illustrated  in  the  accounts  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude 
in  the  first  Gospel,  where  for  the  "  five  thousand  men  "  of 
Mark's  narrative,  in  the  one  case,  and  the  "  about  four 
thousand  "  in  the  other,  we  have  "  about  five  thousand 
men  besides  women  and  children  "  and  "  about  four  thou- 
sand men  besides  children  and  women  "  *  respectively, 
thus  at  least  doubling  the  numbers.  An  indication  of  a 
tendency  to  think  parabolic  sayings  into  parabolic  acts 
appears  in  the  narrative  of  the  barren  fig-tree  through  the 
connection  in  which  Mark  places  the  event  with  the  words 
of  Jesus  in  regard  to  the  faith  which  might  remove  a 
mountain,  f  and  through  the  symbolic  reference  to  the 
judgment  on  the  unfruitful  Jewish  people  which  is  implied 
in  the  position  given  to  the  act.  For  in  Luke's  Gospel 
the  tradition  of  the  saying  about  the  power  of  faith 
appears  with  the  example  of  a  sycamine-tree  instead  of  a 
mountain,  and  a  parable  is  related  touching  the  judgment 

*  Chap.  vi.  44,  viii.  9  ;  Matt.  xiv.  21,  xv.  38. 
f  Chap.  xi.  12-14,  20-23. 


1 68  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

upon  the  Jews  in  which  a  fig-tree  is  taken  as  the  figure.  * 
In  fact,  the  third  evangelist  appears  to  have  exercised  a 
critical  discrimination  when,  in  his  reproduction  of  Mark's 
narrative,  he  has  passed  over  the  second  account  of  the 
feeding  of  the  multitude,  as  well  as  the  story  of  the 
blasted  fig-tree.  There  is,  perhaps,  a  legendary  expansion 
of  history  in  the  general  delineation  of  healings  in  the 
sixth  chapter,  particularly  in  the  closing  remark,f  for  the 
manner  of  healing  here  described  is  not  in  harmony  with 
Jesus'  work  elsewhere  described  by  Mark,  while  it  accords 
very  well  with  the  conception  of  the  unlimited  wonder- 
working of  Jesus  which  the  later  tradition  presents.^: 

The  most  salient  and  striking  literary  peculiarity  of  this 
Gospel  is  its  vivid,  graphic  delineation.  The  writer  is  not 
fettered  by  the  requirements  of  a  chronological  order  nor 
encumbered  with  a  dogmatic  pragmatism.  Those  critics 
who,  like  Volkmar  and,  in  a  less  degree,  Pfleiderer,  §  find 
in  this  record  a  marked  Pauline  "  tendency  "  have  greatly 
mistaken  its  scope  and  purpose.  Striving  only  to  be 
natural  and  direct,  Mark  has  unconsciously  produced  a 
picture.  The  reader  sees  Jesus  surrounded  by  crowds  of 
people  to  whom  he  dispenses  teaching  and  healing,  his 
vain  attempts  to  withdraw  into  seclusion,  and  his  miracles 
made  the  theme  of  public  talk  in  spite  of  his  endeavors  to 
the  contrary.  ||  The  places  where  events  occur  are  sketched 
with  accuracy,  and  the  situation  is  given  in  detail,  even  to 

*  Luke  xiii.  6-9.  f  Verses  54-56. 

\  For  example,  instead  of  the  "  many  "  who,  according  to  Mark  i.  34,  iii. 
10,  were  healed  by  Jesus,  Matthew  and  Luke  report  that  "  all"  were  cured. 
Matt.  viii.  16,  xii.  15  ;  Luke  iv.  40,  vi.  19.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  i. 
p.  41  f. 

§  Volkmar,  Die  Religion  Jesu,  p.  263  f  ;  Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchristenthum, 
P.  359  f- 

i  Chap.  i.  32  f,  36  f,  45  f,  ii.  13,  iii.  7  f,  iv.  i  f,  etc. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  MARK.  169 

the  vivid  representation  of  the  method  of  effecting  a  cure, 
the  circumstances,  gestures,  emotions  which  accompany 
the  act,  and  the  effects  which  it  produces.  *  The  demoni- 
acs are  placed  before  us  with  their  piteous  and  strange 
words  and  their  terrible  violence.  We  see  in  the  Gospel, 
as  in  a  panorama,  how  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  beginning  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  and  taking  Capernaum 
as  its  centre,  extends  in  ever  wider  circles,  and  how  the 
fame  of  the  teacher  spreads  in  all  directions,  and  attracts 
increasing  multitudes.  Over  against  the  enthusiastic 
crowds  of  the  common  people  appear  on  the  scene  the 
ominous  forms  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  whose  opposi- 
tion, rapidly  rising  to  mortal  enmity,  is  brought  to  view  by 
a  series  of  narratives  expressly  chosen  for  this  purpose.f 
At  the  close  of  his  ministry  he  is  placed  in  Jerusalem  in 
the  midst  of  these  hostile  forces  and  tendencies,  the  high- 
priests,  the  pharisees,  the  sadducees,  the  scribes,  and  even 
the  party  of  the  Herodians  repeatedly  mentioned  by 
Mark.  J  Again,  we  see  how,  out  of  the  crowds  of  people 
who  press  about  Jesus  for  the  sake  of  his  healing  powers 
or  from  curiosity,  who  first  hail  him  as  Messiah,  and  finally 
clamor  for  his  death,  there  gradually  detaches  itself  a  little 
company  of  hearers  eager  to  learn  of  him ;  §  we  learn  of 
his  relations  to  his  kindred ;  ||  we  hear  of  the  women  who 
remain  true  to  him  even  at  the  cross  and  the  tomb  ;  of  the 
unknown  man  who  furnished  the  colt,  and  put  at  his  dis- 
posal the  room  for  the  passover-supper ;  of  the  youth  who 
followed  him  to  Gethsemane  ;  of  Simon  the  Cyrenaean, 
who  bore  his  cross  ;  and  of  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  who 
provided  a  burial-place.  We  see  how  he  stands  related  to 

*  See  the  healings,  chap.  vii.  31,  viii.  22-26. 

f  Chap.  ii.  i-iii.  6.  §  Chap.  iii.  34,  iv.  10. 

\  Chap.  xi.  27-xii.  40,  iii.  6,  xii.  13.  ||  Chap.  iii.  26,  31  f. 


1 70  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

his  disciples,  and  how  the  weakness  of  their  faith  and  their 
slowness  of  heart  are  again  and  again  set  forth,  until  finally 
he  devotes  himself  almost  wholly  to  their  culture.  Out  of 
the  circle  of  the  twelve,  however,  detaches  itself  a  smaller 
group  of  his  confidential  friends,  among  whom  Peter  is  the 
foremost,  whose  great  confession  constitutes  the  climax  o'f 
the  narrative.  It  is  incorrect  to  say  that  the  Gospel  is 
occupied  solely  with  the  acts  of  Jesus.  It  is  true  that,  apart 
from  the  discourse  on  the  Parousia,  no  discourses  are  given 
for  the  sake  of  their  doctrinal  contents  alone.  What  he 
taught  in  the  synagogue  is  not  communicated,  but  the 
impression  of  his  manner  of  teaching  is  graphically  de- 
lineated. *  The  Gospel  abounds  in  life-like  conversations 
which  show  vividly  the  striking  manner  in  which  Jesus 
could  answer  questions  and  repel  attacks.  For  the  reason 
that  it  so  immediately  and  graphically  represents  the 
event,  the  writer  has  a  predilection  for  the  dialogue  and 
the  direct  discourse,  and  even  preserves  some  Aramaic 
words  of  Jesus,  f 

The  linguistic  usage  of  the  writer  is  well  adapted  to  be 
the  expression  of  the  literary  character  of  the  work.  A 
critical  examination  of  his  style  has  shown  a  predilection 
for  the  graphic  imperfect  tense  and  the  vivid  historical 
present ;  for  making  conspicuous  the  beginning  of  an  act  \\ 
for  plastic,  marked,  highly-colored  expressions,  and  espe- 
cially for  diminutives ;  for  formulas  of  comparison  of  all 
sorts  ;§  for  a  doubling  of  the  expression  for  the  same  thing, 
in  particular  the  negation  ;  the  connecting  of  the  positive 
and  negative  expressions ;  and  for  the  ever-recurring  £v6v$, 

*  Chap.  i.  21  f,  vi.  2. 

f  Weiss,  Einleit.  p.  501.     Das  Marcusevangelium,  p.  26. 

\  rjp^aro  twenty-six  times. 

§  itoXvS  forty-three  times,  TtoXXd  fifteen  times. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  MARK.  1 71 

which  is  used  forty  times.*  The  narrative  is  also  marked 
by  an  emphatic  circumstantiality  of  expression ;  the  repe- 
tition of  the  same  or  related  words ;  the  name  instead  of 
the  pronoun  ;  the  frequent  abundance  of  pronominal  and 
adverbial  terms ;  the  paraphrase  of  the  finite  verb  by 
tivai  with  a  participle.  The  language  is  strongly  Hebra- 
istic, as  is  shown  especially  by  the  long-drawn-out  construc- 
tions with  xal  and  6e.  Participial  constructions  are  com- 
paratively rare,  but  when  they  do  appear  are  sometimes 
clumsily  heaped  up. 

The  tradition  concerning  the  composition  of  the  Gospel 
favors  Rome  as  the  place  where  it  was  written.  The  in- 
ternal evidences  tend  to  confirm  this  tradition,  the  expla- 
nation of  Aramaic  words  and  Jewish  customs  f  indicating 
that  the  Gospel  was  written  for  gentile  readers.  In  favor 
of  its  Roman  origin  are  the  reference  to  the  Roman 
custom  in  regard  to  divorce ;  the  reduction  of  a  coin  to 
the  Roman  quadrans  ;  J  the  presupposition  of  the  reader's 
acquaintance  with  Pilate ;  §  and  the  mention  of  Alexan- 
der and  Rufus,  sons  of  Simon,  as  if  they  were  well-known 
Christians  in  Rome,  one  of  whom,  Rufus,  may  be  referred 
to  by  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  ||  The  appar- 
ent object  with  which  the  Gospel  was  written  furnishes 
the  only  indication  attainable  of  the  time  of  its  composi- 
tion. This  object  was  not  so  much  to  present  a  chrono- 
logical history  of  the  life  of  Jesus  as  to  encourage  the 
believers  in  him  by  showing,  in  the  first  place,  evidences 

*  Peculiar  is  the  pregnant  use  of  £/£,  of  the  on  recitative,  and  of  many 
Latin  words,  (nsyrvpicar,  updpfiarot,,  &dr?j<$,  Ttpairoopiov,  KoSpdv- 
ri?S,  tiTtEKOvXdrGOp,  (ppayeXXoZr],  and  phrases,  chapter  ii.  23,  perhaps, 
and  xv.  15. 

f  Chap.  vii.  3f,  xiv.  12,  xv.  6,  42.  Davidson,  ii.  p.  119  f.  Weiss, 
Einleit.  p.  502. 

J  Chap.  xii.  42.  §  Chap,  xv,  I.  ||  Rom.  xvi.  23  ;  Mark  xv.  21. 


172  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

that  he  had  adequately  confirmed  his  Messianic  character 
by  his  life  and  teachings,  and,  in  the  second  place,  by  set- 
ting forth  the  promise  of  his  early  return  in  glory.  The 
Gospel  appears  from  the  thirteenth  chapter  to  have  been 
written  under  the  shadow  of  the  impending  overthrow  of 
Jerusalem,  at  a  time  when  the  hope  of  the  Christians  in 
the  Parousia  was  flagging.  It  is  thought  by  some  critics  to 
represent  a  loosening  of  the  immediate  connection  be- 
tween the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  second  coming 
of  Christ.  There  is  also  wanting  in  it  all  reference  to  the 
overthrow  of  the  city  as  an  event  already  consummated 
even  in  the  prophetic  words  in  the  second  verse  of  the 
thirteenth  chapter.*  The  most  probable  conjecture  ap- 
pears to  be  that  which  places  its  composition  in  the  last 
years  of  the  sixties,  at  which  time  Matthew's  logia  may 
very  likely  have  existed  in  a  Greek  translation  in  Rome.f 
The  record  ends  at  chap.  xvi.  8,  and  contains  no  account 
of  an  appearance  of  Jesus  after  his  death. 

*  Those  critics  who  regard  these  words  as  a  vaticinium  post  eventum  place 
the  composition  of  the  Gospel  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Pfleiderer 
appears  to  incline  to  this  view,  although  he  thinks  it  "  not  impossible"  that 
they  may  be  a  genuine  tradition  of  words  of  Jesus.  (Das  Urchristenthum, 
p.  416.)  Those  who  think  Mark  used  Luke  and  Matthew,  according  to  the 
Griesbach  hypothesis,  must,  of  course,  date  the  Gospel  much  later.  Keim 
supposes  its  date  to  have  been  about  100  (Gesch.  Jesu  von  Nazara,  i.  p. 
54)  and  Davidson  about  120  (Introduction,  ii.  p.  in). 

f  Weiss,  Einleit.  p.  518. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING   TO   MATTHEW. 

A  CCORDING  to  an  ancient  Christian  tradition  the 
J^\^  first  attempt  in  evangelic  literature  was  made  by 
Matthew,  whom  the  first  Gospel  designates  as  the  publican.* 
The  earliest  form  in  which  the  tradition  appears  is  pre- 
served by  Eusebius  in  the  section  of  his  history  devoted 
to  Papias,  who  wrote  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  cen- 
tury an  explanation  of  the  oracles,  or  sayings,  of  Christ.f 
Papias  appears  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  persons  who  had 
seen  or  heard  Jesus  and  a  man  of  influence  who  devoted 
himself  to  the  collection  of  oral  traditions  regarding  the 
earliest  history  of  Christianity.  His  testimony,  then,  de- 
serves to  be  heard  and  weighed.  His  statement  regarding 
Matthew's  writing  is  that  the  latter  composed  "  The 
Oracles  "J  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  and  that  every  one 
translated  them  as  he  was  able.  Since  the  term  "  ora- 
cles/' or  logia,  stands  in  the  passage  without  qualification, 
its  meaning  is  obscure,  and  has  given  rise  to  no  little  dis- 
cussion. As  has  been  shown  in  the  chapter  on  the  synop- 

*  Chap.  ix.  9.  Mark  and  Luke  in  passages  undoubtedly  parallel  with  this 
name  the  publican  Levi,  the  former  further  designating  him  as  the  son  of 
Alpheus,  but  Luke  in  the  list  of  the  apostles  does  not  call  him  the  son  of 
Alpheus,  while  he  mentions  as  such  a  James  whose  brother  was  Judas.  Mat- 
thew's identity  with  Levi  is  accordingly  doubtful,  and  the  latter  may  not 
have  been  called  as  an  apostle.  Mark  ii.  14.,  iii.  17  f  ;  Luke  v.  27,  vi.  14  f  ; 
Matt.  x.  2  f. 

f  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39.  £  rd  Xoyia. 

173 


1 74  GOSPEL-  CRITICISM. 

tic  problem,  the  conflicting  solutions  of  that  question  and 
the  most  opposite  theories  as  to  the  origin  of  the  first 
three  Gospels  take  their  departure  from  this  point.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  term  "  logia  "  describes 
a  composition  in  the  Aramaic  dialect  containing  some 
account  of  the  teachings  and  possibly  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
The  remark  concerning  the  translation  of  this  writing  by 
every  one  as  he  was  able,  very  likely  refers  to  the  use  of  it 
in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  Christians  or  by  private 
readers,  rather  than  to  any  general  circulation  of  copies  of 
it  or  to  written  translations  in  considerable  numbers.  No 
inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  words  of  Papias  to  the 
existence  of  the  original  Aramaic  writing  in  his  time. 
Rather  the  reference  to  the  original  work  and  to  the  neces- 
sity of  translations  is  to  facts  already  passed. 

Since  Papias  does  not  accurately  report  on  the  nature 
and  contents  of  this  writing  by  Matthew,  the  important 
question  whether  it  was  essentially  our  first  canonical 
Gospel  in  Aramaic  or  a  work  of  a  different  sort  can  be  de- 
termined, so  far  as  his  testimony  is  concerned,  only  by  a 
study  of  the  single  word  with  which  he  describes  it.  The 
reference  of  the  passage  to  Christ  being  unquestionable, 
we  have,  then,  first  to  determine  what  Papias  meant  by 
the  logia  of  Christ.  It  appears  arbitrary  to  divide  the 
question  as  Holtzmann  does  on  the  supposition  that 
Papias  may  have  been  thinking  in  making  his  report  of  a 
different  work  from  that  known  and  testified  to  by  his 
supposed  informant,  the  presbyter  John,  that  is,  of  an 
Aramaic  Gospel  used  by  a  heretical  sect  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians and  given  out  by  them  as  the  original  of  Matthew's 
Gospel.*  To  assume  that  the  witness,  on  whose  testi- 
mony the  whole  question  rests,  did  not  understand  his 

*  Einleit.  p.  387. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW.  175 

informant,  and  was  ignorant  in  regard  to  a  vital  part  of 
the  matter,  is  needlessly  to  cast  discredit  upon  him.  On 
this  hypothesis  it  is  inexplicable  that  Papias  should  have 
used  the  term  "  logia  "  to  designate  the  work  in  question 
instead  of  the  usual  fvayyk\iov  to  denote  Gospel.  Now 
the  Greek  word  \oyiov  (plural  Xoyia)  is  a  diminutive  of 
AGIOS',  and  means  "  a  little  word,"  "  a  brief  utterance," 
"an  oracle,"  but  "chiefly  any  utterance  of  God,  whether 
precept  or  promise."  *  It  is  applied  to  oracles  which 
commonly  take  a  sententious  or  gnomic  form,  f  Accord- 
ingly, in  Romans,  J  Paul  writes  of  the  Jews  as  having 
been  "  entrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God,"  apropos  of  the 
law  of  which  each  precept  was  regarded  as  an  effatum  Dei. 
In  Christian  literature  the  word  is  applied  to  passages  in 
the  Bible  taken  separately  and  regarded  as  an  expression 
of  a  will  or  a  truth  divinely  revealed.  §  The  \oyiov  is, 
then,  essentially  something  of  a  didactic  character,  and  is 
not  necessarily  connected  with  the  narration  of  events. 
The  fact  that  it  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  Bible  as  a 
revelation  does  not  affect  the  conclusion  respecting  the 
use  of  it  by  Papias,  for  in  his  time  nothing  was  known 

*  Grimm's  Wilke's  Clavis  N.  T.  sub  voce. 

\  According  to  Suidas,  Xoyia  are  rd  rtapd  Osov  A.sy6/J.era  naraXoyd- 
Srjr,  "the  things  said  in  prose  from  God,"  distinguished  from  j/a^o'//ot, 
oracles  in  verse.  Reville,  Matthieu. 

\  Chap.  iii.  2,  cf.  Acts  vii.  38. 

§  Eusebius  frequently  employs  the  word  in  the  senses  referred  to.  He 
calls  the  ten  commandments  treated  of  in  a  work  by  Philo  rd  dsna  Xoyia, 
Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  18.  Ephraim,  the  Syrian,  also  designates  the  N.  T.  in 
reference  to  its  containing  proof-texts  for  the  Trinity  as  Xoyia  uvpiand 
nai  aito6Toi\.iKa.  nrjpvynara,  whereby  he  does  not  mean  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  as  such,  but  the  sayings  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  as  alone  furnish- 
ing the  proofs  in  question.  Schleiermacher,  Ueber  das  Zeugniss  des  Papias, 
Werke  zur  Theol.  ii.  p.  367.  Compare  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp,  vii.,  nal  o$ 
av  jusQodevy  rd  Xoyia  rov  nvpiov  TtpoS  rdS  tdia<a  tTtiQvjuiaS,  H.r.X. 


1/6  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

of  inspired  Christian  writings,  as  has  been  shown  in  the 
discussion  of  the  canon.  He,  then,  could  not  have  used 
it  in  reference  to  a  canonical  writing  supposed  to  possess 
divine  authority,  but,  as  in  the  title  of  his  own  work,  only 
of  discourses  of  Christ  with  the  difference  that  his  writing 
as  an  sgiyyrjffiS,  or  explanation,  may  very  likely  have  con- 
tained considerable  matter  explanatory  of  the  \oyiot 
HVpianofy  or  oracles  of  the  Lord  (Christ). 

The  evident  intention  of  Papias  to  mark  a  distinction 
between  the  writings  of  Matthew  and  Mark  which  were 
known  to  him  leads  to  the  conclusion  regarding  the 
former  which  has  already  been  indicated.  Mark's  work 
he  describes  as  an  account  of  the  words  and  deeds  of 
Christ,  *  and  immediately  after  mentioning  it  he  proceeds 
to  give  an  account  of  the  tradition  concerning  the  writing 
by  Matthew,  which  he  characterizes  simply  as  the  logia, 
the  oracles,  the  effata  of  Christ.  It  is  true  that,  continu- 
ing, he  says  of  Mark  that,  not  having  been  a  hearer  or  a 
follower  of  Christ,  but  only  of  Peter,  he  received  no  in- 
struction which  could  qualify  him  to  give  an  orderly  nar- 
rative of  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  The  conclusion  has 
been  drawn  from  this  remark  that  Papias  puts  the  writings 
of  Matthew  and  Mark  on  the  same  footing,  since,  after  re- 
ferring to  the  former  as  the  logia,  he  mentions  the  latter 
as  an  account  of  the  discourses  of  Christ,  f  But  that  he 
intends  to  draw  a  clear  distinction  between  the  two  writ- 
ings is  evident  from  the  manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
one  as  simply  the  logia  and  of  the  other  as  the  things  said 
and  done  by  Jesus.  The  difference  between  \oyia,  oracles, 
and  ffvvra^i?  robv  \6ycov7  J  a  narrative  of  the  discourses, 


*  rd  vTfo  rov  xpitfrov  r?  XexQevra  ff 

f  Davidson,  Introduction,  i.  p.  467. 

\  koyoov  is  the  reading  of  Val.  B.  C.  D.  F.  H. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW.  1 77 

is  too  manifest  to  require  illustration,  even  if  the  sense  of 
the  latter  term  had  not  previously  been  fixed  by  the 
words,  "  things  said  and  done."  Even  Weiss,  who  holds, 
on  grounds  of  Gospel-criticism,  that  the  logia  contained 
some  connecting  narrative,  remarks  that  it  is  quite  unten- 
able to  argue  from  the  misunderstood  testimony  of  Papias 
in  regard  to  Mark  that  he  meant  by  the  term  logia  the 
things  said  or  done,  or  used  the  former  term  in  the  sense 
of  the  later  usage  of  the  Church,  according  to  which 
\oyia  Hvpiaxa  designated  the  Gospels  on  account  of  their 
really  canonical  contents,  and  ra  \6yia  (Beov)  the  divine 
revelation  of  the  Scriptures,  as  if  there  were  any  import  in 
which  it  could  be  said  (from  the  point  of  view  of  the  history 
of  the  canon,  of  course)  that  Matthew  collected  the  \oyia 
in  such  a  sense.  * 

The  state  of  the  case  is  quite  different  when  we  come  to 
the  later  testimonies  regarding  Matthew's  writing,  so  that 
some  scholars  have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  there 
existed  an  original  Hebrew  Gospel  according  to  Matthew, 
of  which  our  canonical  first  Gospel  is  a  Greek  translation. 
Some  of  the  advocates  of  this  view,  however,  maintain 
that  Matthew's  part  in  the  composition  of  this  work  was 
confined  to  the  writing  of  the  logia.  f  The  testimony  of 
Irenaeus  is  that  "  Matthew  among  the  Hebrews  published 
a  Gospel  in  writing  in  their  own  dialect.  \  Pantaenus,  who 
lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  is  said  by 
Eusebius  to  have  found  in  India  (southern  Arabia  ?)  a 
Gospel  of  Matthew  in  Hebrew  which  had  been  left  there 
by  Bartholomew.  §  Jerome  makes  a  similar  statement.! 
Elsewhere  he  says  that  Matthew  wrote  a  Gospel  in  Hebrew 

*  Einleit.  p.  493.  \  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.  I. 

•J-  Meyer,  Commentar,  i.  I,  p.  14.  §  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  10. 

||  De  Viris  illust.  c.  36. 

12 


178  GOSPEL-  CRI  riCISM. 

for  the  benefit  of  those  of  the  circumcision  who  believed, 
and  that  it  was  uncertain  who  translated  it  into  Greek. 
He  further  says  that  the  Nazarenes,  who  had  a  copy  of  it 
in  Pamphilius'  library  at  Caesarea,  allowed  him  to  make  a 
transcription  of  it.  Again,  he  says  that  he  translated  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  the  Nazarenes 
and  Ebionites  used,  into  Greek  and  Latin.  *  Yet  Epipha- 
nius  is  positive  that  the  Gospel  used  by  the  Nazarenes 
and  Ebionites  was  the  Hebrew  Matthew,  f  although  it 
was  known  as  that  according  to  the  Hebrews.  But  again, 
Clement  and  Origen  distinguished  it  from  Matthew's 
Gospel  as  independent  and  different.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  two  writings  were  different,  since  citations 
are  preserved  from  the  former  of  passages  which  are  not  in 
our  first  Gospel.  Now  there  is  no  little  uncertainty  in  all 
this  testimony.  The  story  of  Bartholomew  is  legendary, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  that  Pantaenus  made  an  exami- 
nation of  the  Gospel  which  he  found  in  Arabia,  so  as  to 
be  qualified  to  affirm  that  it  was  an  original  writing  by 
Matthew.  It  might,  in  fact,  have  been  a  translation  of 
the  Greek  first  Gospel  into  Aramaic.  It  appears  that 
Jerome  confounded  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
with  a  supposed  Aramaic  Matthew,  and  afterwards 
wavered,  and  said  that  it  was  simply  thought  by  most 
people  to  be  identical  with  the  latter.  \  His  commentary 
on  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  shows  no  acquaintance  with  a 
Hebrew  original.  §  If  we  accord  to  Hilgenfeld  that  Papias 
knew  of  various  Gospels  which  were  modifications  of  an 
original  work  by  Matthew,  this  critic's  conclusion  by  no 
means  follows  that  Papias  meant  by  the  \oyia.  a  complete 

*  Ib.  c.  2  and  3.  f  Haeres.  xxix.  9. 

\  Ut  pleri  autumant  secundum  Matthaeum.  Comm.  supra  Matt.  xii.  12. 
§  Weiss,  Einleit.  p.  496. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW.  179 

Aramaic  Gospel.*  For  the  demonstrable  differences  be- 
tween our  Matthew  and  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  in  its  varied  forms  indicate  nothing  so  much  as 
that  the  former  was  an  independent  elaboration  from  tra- 
ditional and  legendary  sources  of  the  original  logia-col- 
lection  itself.  The  statements  of  Eusebius,  Origen,  and 
others  as  to  a  complete  Aramaic  Gospel  by  Matthew  were 
probably  echoes  of  an  early  tradition  which  grew  out  of 
the  testimony  of  Papias.  This  testimony  as  to  the  logia 
stands  unimpaired  in  spite  of  the  attempt  to  show  on 
the  one  hand  that  it  is  to  be  referred  to  an  Aramaic  trans- 
lation of  a  work  written  by  Matthew  in  Greek,  and  on  the 
other  to  a  complete  Aramaic  Gospel.  The  conclusion  of 
Weiss  is  probably  in  accordance  with  the  general  tendency 
of  criticism  at  the  present  time,  viz.,  that  of  this  original 
writing  by  Matthew,  which  had  already  gone  out  of  use 
in  the  time  of  Papias,  and  was  known  to  none  of  the  later 
fathers,  we  have  no  other  knowledge  than  that  given  by 
him. 

With  the  early  existence  of  a  complete  Gospel  by  Mat- 
thew are  irreconcilable  the  phenomena  presented  by  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  who  in  his  prologue  indicates  an  acquaint- 
ance with  many  written  accounts  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  It 
is  hardly  supposable  that  if  such  a  writing  by  the  hand  of 
an  apostle  had  existed  when  he  wrote  he  would  not  have 
known  and  consulted  it.  But  knowing  such  a  work  he 
could  not  have  departed  so  widely  from  it  in  so  many 
particulars.  Had  he  believed  in  the  apostolic  origin  of 
the  story  of  the  flight  into  Egypt,  of  the  infancy,  and  of 
the  appearance  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection  to  his  disci- 
ples in  Galilee,  it  is  incredible  that  he  should  have  written 
about  these  matters  in  a  manner  wholly  irreconcilable 

*  Die  Evangelien,  etc.  p.  119. 


180  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

with  these  accounts.*  Likewise,  if  Papias  had  known  a 
complete  Matthew,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  have 
been  ignorant  of  the  account  of  the  death  of  Judas  as 
reported  in  that  Gospel,  and  would  have  published  the 
entirely  different  story  which  has  been  preserved,  espe- 
cially since  he  declares,  in  the  fragment  in  Eusebius,  that 
he  was  careful  to  inquire  what  Matthew  had  reported,  as 
well  as  what  was  said  by  certain  others.  Either  Papias 
was  false  to  his  own  principle,  an  assumption  for  which 
there  is  no  ground,  or  his  Matthew  was  not  our  first  Gos- 
pel.f  Again,  if  our  actual  first  Gospel  had  appeared 
during  the  life  of  the  apostle  Matthew,  and  been  stamped 
with  his  apostolic  seal,  an  ancient  Bishop,  very  curious  to 
know  just  what  the  apostles  had  said,  would  not,  towards 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  have  regarded  tradition 
as  the  best  means  of  learning  what  Matthew  had  said.  J 

That  our  canonical  first  Gospel  is  an  independent  com- 
position in  the  Greek  language  and  not  a  translation  from 
an  Aramaic  original  is  capable  of  demonstration  from 
internal  evidences,  and  may  be  regarded  as  an  established 
result  of  modern  criticism.  §  The  decision  of  the  ques- 
tion turns  largely  on  the  writer's  way  of  quoting  passages 
from  the  Old  Testament.  As  to  these  citations  Credner 
remarks  that  few  subjects  have  had  so  much  investigation 
as  this  without  a  satisfactory  result.  Proofs  have  been 
found  in  them  both  for  and  against  an  Aramaic  original, 
and,  indeed,  if  single  passages  are  considered  alone,  they 
will  furnish  evidence  for  either  hypothesis.  Credner's 

*  Compare  Matt.  iii.  13-23,  xxvii.  16-20  with  Luke  ii.  39,  40,  xxiv.  13-53. 

f  Credner,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  91. 

\  Reville,  Etudes  sur  Matthieu,  p.  6  ;   cf.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 

§  Holtzmann  regards  this  conclusion  as  unquestionable.  Baur,  Hilgenfeld, 
Meyer,  Davidson,  and  others  understand  by  translation  a  more  or  less  free 
transformation  of  an  Aramaic  original. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW.  1 8 1 

most  searching  and  learned  investigation  of  the  subject  is 
one  of  the  most  valuable  contributions  to  Gospel-criticism.* 
His  conclusions  are  that  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel 
quotes  freely  from,  and  holds  throughout  in  his  citation 
of  passages  from  the  Old  Testament  to,  the  Greek  trans- 
lation (the  Septuagint),  but  in  the  Messianic  passages,  and 
in  these  alone,  makes  comparisons  and  alterations  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  text,  or,  as  Gesenius  supposes,  accord- 
ing to  an  ancient  Targum.  From  the  Pentateuch  are 
quoted  several  passages,  some  twice,  none  of  which  have 
a  Messianic  reference.  All  show  a  Greek  origin,  that  is, 
dependence  on  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, f  From  the  Psalms  eight  passages  deserve  atten- 
tion, the  most  of  which  are  freely  interwoven  according 
to  the  Septuagint,  and  others  verbally  reproduced.  There 
are  no  strictly  Messianic  passages  among  these.  \  Sixteen 
important  quotations  are  made  from  the  prophetical  writ- 
ings, being  eight  from  Isaiah,  one  from  Jeremiah,  and 
seven  from  the  minor  prophets.  These  are  the  really 
Messianic  proof-texts,  and  in  them  is  apparent  the  strong- 
est inclination  to  the  Hebrew  text ;  yet  this  inclination  is 
of  such  a  nature  that  the  Greek  basis  remains  unmistak- 
able^ The  writer  of  Matthew  sometimes  makes  his 
quotations  from  the  Septuagint  when  that  version,  often 
incorrect,  is 'more  suitable  to  his  dogmatic  purpose  than 

*  Beitrage  zur  Einleit.  in  die  bibl.  Schriften,  Bd.  ii. 

f  Chap.  ii.  20,  iv.  4,  7,  10,  v.  38,  xv»  4,  xvii.  16,  xix.  5,  18,  xxii.  37. 

\  Chap.  xxi.  9,  16,  42,  iv.  6,  vii.  23,  xiii.  35,  xxii.  44,  xxvii.  46. 

§  Chap.  i.  23,  cf.  Is.  vii.  14  ;  iv.  15,  cf.  Is.  viii.  23  ;  xii.  18-21,  cf.  Is. 
xlii.  if  ;  viii.  17,  cf.  Is.  liii.  4  ;  all  purely  Messianic  passages.  Cf.  iii.  3, 
xiii.  14  f,  xv.  8  f,  xxi.  13.  From  Jeremiah,  xxxi.  15,  Matt.  ii.  18,  deviating 
somewhat  from  the  Septuagint.  From  the  minor  prophets,  Hos.  xi.  i, 
Matt.  ii.  15  ;  Micah  v.  2,  Matt.  ii.  6  ;  Zech.  ix.  9,  Matt.  xxi.  5.  Inclining 
more  to  the  Septuagint  are  chaps,  ix.  13,  xi.  10,  xii.  7. 


1 8  2  GOSPEL-  CRITICISM. 

the  original  Hebrew  text.  The  quotation,  i.  23,  from 
Isaiah  vii.  14,  furnishes  an  illustration.  The  historic 
sense  of  the  prophecy  is  that  a  young  woman,  perhaps 
the  wife  of  the  prophet,*  is  with  child,  and  will  bring 
forth  a  son  whose  birth  will  be  the  sign  of  the  judgments 
of  Jahveh  upon  Israel.  By  following  the  Septuagint  in 
the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  marriageable 
young  woman  by  the  Greek  word  for  virgin,  f  the  writer 
of  Matthew  makes  the  prophetic  text  serve  as  a  proof  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous  conception  of  Mary,  a 
proof,  of  course,  from  his  exegetical  point  of  view. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  evangelist  sometimes  departs 
from  the  Septuagint-version  when  it  suits  the  purpose  for 
which  a  quotation  is  made.  In  viii.  17  he  finds  the  cures 
performed  by  Jesus  predicted  in  Isaiah  liii.  4,  where  the 
original  reads:  "  He  hath  borne  our  griefs  [sickness],  and 
carried  our  sorrows."  The  Septuagint  translates  the  pas- 
sage :  "  He  bears  our  sins,  and  is  distressed  on  our  ac- 
count," and  this  expiatory  idea  is  expressed  in  I.  Peter,  ii. 
24.  This  rendering  did  not  suit  the  connection  in  which 
the  evangelist  wished  to  use  the  quotation,  and  he  accord- 
ingly departs  from  the  Septuagint,  and  adheres  pretty 
closely  to  the  Hebrew  text,  rendering  it :  "  Himself  took 
our  infirmities,  and  bore  our  sicknesses."  Again,  a  knowl- 
edge of  Hebrew  is  indicated  in  ii.  23  ;  "  And  he  shall  be 
called  a  Nazarene,"  a  saying  which  is  referred  to  "  the 

*  Gesenius,  Comm.  uber  den  Jesaia  ;   Knobel,  Der  Prophet  Jesaia,  etc. 

f  The  Hebrew  word,  noSy,  used  in  this  passage,  means  "a  marriageable 
young  woman,"  i.e.,  one  of  the  age  to  marry,  and  not  "a  virgin."  The 
Hebrew  word  for  the  latter  is  r6ttfl2.  Other  Jewish  translators  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  more  correct  in  rendering  the  former  in  Greek  by  vzavi1* 
than  the  seventy,  whom  the  first  evangelist  followed,  by  itapQero<s.  Justin, 
ignorant  of  Hebrew,  reproaches  the  Jews  for  translating  it  by 
Dial,  cum  Trypho,  71. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   MATTHEW.  183 

prophets."  The  idea  was  evidently  derived  from  two 
passages  in  Isaiah  xi.  i,  and  Ix.  21,  in  one  of  which  there 
is  a  prophecy  of  a  royal  descendant  of  the  line  of  David 
who  is  designated  as  "  the  Branch,"  the  Hebrew  for  which 
word  is  similar  to  the  first  two  syllables  of  Nazarene.* 
The  strange  idea  of  the  evangelist  could  not  have  come 
from  the  Greek  version,  f  and  can  only  be  explained  by 
supposing  that  he  had  studied  the  Hebrew  text.  These 
are  only  a  few  of  the  examples  which  might  be  cited  to 
show  that  the  first  evangelist  used  both  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament  in  his  quota- 
tions from  that  book,  but  that  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases  he  depended  on  the  former.  The  conclusion  is  that 
the  first  Gospel  was  composed  in  Greek,  and  that  the 
author  was  a  Jew  versed  in  the  Old-Testament  Scriptures.  \ 
The  acceptance  of  the  testimony  of  Papias  to  the  com- 
position of  the  logia  by  Matthew  in  Aramaic  and  of  the 
evidence  already  adduced  foi  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  in 
Greek  in  its  present  form,  leads  to  the  inquiry  as  to  its 
author.  The  external  evidence  carries  us  no  farther  than 
Matthew's  authorship  of  the  work  mentioned  by  Papias. 
An  examination  of  the  Gospel  furnishes  strong  support  on 
internal  grounds  for  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  the  work  of 
an  apostle  or  of  an  eye-witness.  Not  to  emphasize  the 
fact  that  a  contemporary  would  not  be  likely  to  employ 
the  expression,  "  until  this  day,"  §  the  legendary  portions 
of  the  narrative  are  conclusive  against  its  apostolical  au- 
thorship. Such  are  probably  the  accounts  of  the  birth 


y,  Nezer.     It  is,  however,  nowhere  said  by  a  prophet,  much  less  by 
"prophets,"  that  the  person  in  question  should  "be  called  a  Nazarene." 
f  The  Septuagint  translates  the  word  by  (pvrevjiKX. 
J  Weiss,  Einleit.  p.  527  ;  Reville,  Etudes  sur  Matthieu,  p.  31. 
§  £&>£,  or  juexpi  ^  d^spov.    Chap,  xxvii.  8  ;  xxviii.  15. 


1 84  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

and  infancy  of  Jesus ;  the  details  of  the  temptation  in  the 
desert ;  the  episode  of  Peter's  walking  on  the  water ;  the 
story  of  the  piece  of  money  to  be  found  in  the  mouth  of  a 
fish  ;  the  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple ;  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  saints  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  ;  and  the 
corruption  of  the  guard  placed  at  the  tomb.*  To  any  one 
who  may  repudiate  these  objections  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  subjective,  it  may  be  replied  that  they  are 
not  urged  from  a  prejudice  against  the  supernatural 
as  such,  but  partly  because  they  offend  the  historical 
and  critical  judgment  which,  when  unbiassed,  cannot 
but  pronounce  some  of  them  to  be  of  the  nature  of 
legendary  stories,  which  in  apocryphal  Christian  writings 
would  be  unhesitatingly  set  aside  as  such,  and  partly 
because  of  internal  difficulties.  The  apostolic  origin  of 
the  story  of  the  infancy  is,  as  has  already  been  remarked, 
irreconcilable  with  Luke's  narrative.  The  detailed  account 
of  the  temptation  furnishes  in  itself  no  grounds  of  histori- 
cal verification,  and  has  rather  the  appearance  of  an  ex- 
pansion of  symbolic  ideas  into  a  narrative  than  an  account 
of  actual  occurrences.  The  symbolism  of  the  abolition  of 
the  Jewish  cultus,  which  lay  in  the  rending  of  the  veil  of 
the  temple,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  believers  to  be 
effected  through  the  death  of  Christ,  in  the  opening  of 
the  graves,  may  have  received  a  similar  historical  expan- 
sion in  the  related  legends.  The  account  of  the  guard  of 
.soldiers  at  the  grave  of  Jesus  and  of  their  corruption  by 
the  Jewish  authorities  is  beset  with  insuperable  difficul- 
ties, and  is  correctly  characterized  by  Meyer  as  belonging 
to  "  unhistorical  legends."  Reville,  in  a  work  crowned  by 
the  "  Society  of  The  Hague  for  the  Defence  of  the  Christian 
Religion,"  remarks  in  regard  to  the  foregoing  accounts : 

*  i.  ii.  iv.  l-il,  xiv.  28-31,  xvii.  27,  xxvii.  51,  52,  53.     Compare,  Meyer, 
Commentar,  i.  i,  p.  60 1. 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW.  1 8$ 

"  Now  we  regard  it  as  evident  that  an  author  contempo- 
rary with  Jesus,  witness  of  his  life,  his  death,  and  his 
resurrection,  would  not  give  place  in  his  evangelic  narra- 
tives to  these  impressions  more  or  less  accentuated  by 
legend  pious  or  mythic.  In  order  to  conceive  of  their 
possibility,  it  is  necessary  to  allow  between  the  primitive 
fact  and  its  recital  a  sufficient  lapse  of  time  for  the  nimbus 
produced  by  distance,  to  permit  the  imagination  thus  to 
color  the  objects  without  prejudice  to  the  na'ivet£  and  the 
perfect  sincerity  of  intention  which  lend  so  much  charm  to 
our  sacred  books."  * 

There  are,  moreover,  apart  from  all  objections  which 
may  appear  to  be  tainted  with  subjectivity,  several  con- 
siderations of  weight  against  the  apostolical  authorship  of 
the  Gospel.  There  are  no  intimations  in  the  book  that  it 
was  written  by  Matthew.  An  eye-witness  would  hardly 
have  passed  over  in  silence  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in  Judea, 
which  is  in  itself  probable,  and  is  presupposed  by  the 
evangelist  himself,  f  The  order  of  time  appears  to  be  in 
part  arbitrary  and  in  part  to  have  been  determined  by 
an  arrangement  of  events  according  to  an  order  of  the 
subject-matter.  There  is  wanting  throughout  the  vivid- 
ness of  narration  which  denotes  the  eye-witness,  especially 
in  the  account  of  the  crucifixion.  In  this  respect  the 
Gospel  is  admitted  to  be  inferior  to  Mark's.  The  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  are  artificially  constructed  by  a  com- 
bination of  elements  which,  though  sometimes  related, 
evidently  belong  to  different  occasions.  Two  accounts 
are  repeated  with  slight  variations.^:  Two  animals  are 

*  Etudes  sur  Matthieu,  p.  33. 

f  Chap,  xxiii.  37. 

\  Chap.  xiv.  16-21,  cf.  xv.  32-38  ;  chap.  ix.  32-34,  cf.  xii.  22-20.  Other 
doublets,  v.  29,  30,  cf.  xviii.  8,  9  ;  v.  32,  and  x.  22,  cf.  xix.  9  and 
xxiv.  9,  13. 


1 86  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

mentioned  on  the  occasion  of  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  in 
triumph  in  order  that  there  may  appear  to  have  been  a 
fulfilment  of  a  prophecy  which  the  evangelist  evidently 
misunderstood.  The  scene  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth 
is  misplaced,  and  Matthew's  call  has  an  improbable  rela- 
tion of  time  in  the  narrative.  From  these  considerations 
and  many  others  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  urge,  it 
must  be  concluded  that,  as  a  whole,  the  Gospel  is  not  of 
apostolic  origin,  and  cannot  be  the  work  of  an  eye-witness. 
Its  immediate  composition  by  an  apostle  is  accordingly 
denied  at  the  present  time,  not  only  by  representatives  of 
the  strictly  critical  school,  but  by  all  those  who  in  refer- 
ence to  the  synoptical  question  hold  to  the  theory  of  two 
sources,  the  logia  and  Mark,  or  in  regard  to  the  Johannean 
question  favor  the  apostolicity  and  historical  credibility  of 
the  fourth  Gospel ;  for  on  account  of  the  differences  be- 
tween the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  John,  one  of  these 
records  at  least  must  be  struck  out  of  the  number  of 
primitive  historical  sources.  * 

The  editor  of  our  first  Gospel  doubtless  used  as  the 
sources  of  his  narrative  the  logia  of  Matthew,  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,  and  oral  tradition.  The  entire  material  of 
Mark's  Gospel,  with  trifling  exceptions,  has  been  in- 
corporated into  this  record,  and  generally  in  the  same 
arrangement  in  which  it  stands  in  the  former.  The  order, 
however,  appears  to  be  frequently  determined  according 
to  the  subject-matter  rather  than  by  regard  for  chronology. 
The  secondary  character  of  the  Gospel  as  compared  with 
that  of  Mark  appears  in  various  deviations  from  the  latter, 
often  determined  by  literary  motives.  Places  and  persons 
are  mofe  definitely  determined. f  Additions  are  made  by 

*  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  p.  387. 

f  Chap.  iii.  I,  "of  Judaea"  added,  cf.  Mark  i.  4  ;  the  going  to  Capernaum 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   MATTHEW.  l8/ 

way  of  explanation,  enlargement,  and  coloring.*  Entirely 
new  features  are  inserted  in  several  places,  f  Words  which 
in  Mark  are  only  intimated  receive  a  more  pronounced 
and  formulated  statement ;  questions  introducing  a  saying 
of  Jesus  are  shaped  according  to  the  answer,  and  the  whole 
narrative  appears  intended  to  smooth  and  alleviate  what 
is  rough  and  harsh  in  the  other.  \  There  are  several  pas- 
sages which  are  evidently  insertions  into  the  text  of 
Mark.§  The  revision  of  Mark's  text  by  the  first  evan- 
gelist nowhere  appears  more  evident  than  in  the  history 
of  the  passion  which  the  former  has  reported  in  a  quite 
original  way.  The  beginning  of  this  history  is  plainly  a 
transformation  of  Mark's  opening  sentence.  The  demand 
of  money  by  Judas  and  his  payment  with  the  thirty 
pieces;  his  direct  unmasking;  the  climax  of  the  three 
acts  of  prayer  in  Gethsemane  and  of  the  three  denials ; 

is  determined  by  a  prophecy,  iv.  13,  cf.  Mark  i.  14-21  ;  John  is  designated 
as  "  the  Baptist  "  on  his  first  appearance,  iii.  i  ;  Simon  is  mentioned  at  once 
with  his  cognomen  of  Peter,  iv.  18,  and  many  similar  cases,  xiv.  i,  xix.  20, 
xxvi.  3,  xxvii.  56,  etc. 

*  "  By  a  word,"  added  to  describe  method  of  healing,  viii.  16  ;  the  reason 
added  for  plucking  the  ears  of  corn,  xii.  i,  and  for  Peter's  following  of  Christ, 
xxvi.  58  ;  the  manner  of  Christ's  death,  xx.  19,  and  the  object  of  the  shedding 
of  his  blood,  xxvi.  28,  cf.  Mark  x.  34,  xiv.  24. 

|  Chap.  xvi.  i,  Sadducees  added  ;  xix.  19,  the  commandment  of  love  to 
neighbor  added  to  the  decalogue  ;  xxvii.  29,  the  reed  placed  in  the  right  hand 
as  a  sceptre. 

\  Formulas  made  more  precise  or  enlarged,  iii.  2,  cf.  Mark  i.  i,  2  ;  xvi. 
22,  cf.  Mark  viii.  32  ;  xxvi.  27,  50,  52,  54,  cf.  Mark  xiv.  22  f.,  45,  47,  49  ; 
questions  modified,  etc.,  xvii.  19,  cf.  Mark  ix.  19  ;  xviii.  I,  cf.  Mark  ix.  34  ; 
xix.  3,  cf.  Mark  x.  2  ;  xix.  27,  cf.  Mark  x.  28  ;  xxiv.  3,  cf.  Mark  xiii.  4  ; 
difficulties  removed,  etc.,  xiii.  10-13,  cf-  Mark  iv.  10-13  ;  xv.  16-20,  cf. 
Mark  viii.  18-23  >  xv"'  IO~I3.  cf>  Mark  ix.  12,  13  ;  xiv.  34-36,  cf.  Mark 
vii.  54-56. 

§  Chap.  xiv.  28-31,  xvii.  24-27,  xxvii.  3-10,  19,  24  f,  52  f,  62-66,  xxviii. 
2-4. 


1 8  8  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

the  proposal  of  a  choice  between  Barabbas  and  Jesus  by 
Pilate,  are  evidently  secondary  features.  *  Again,  the 
fact  that  much  of  Mark's  peculiar  use  of  words  has  passed 
over  into  the  first  Gospel  shows  it  to  be  a  revision  of  the 
former. 

The  evident  dependence  of  our  first  Gospel  upon  the 
second  does  not,  however,  account  for  an  important  por- 
tion of  its  contents,  consisting  principally  of  material  not 
contained  in  Mark  and  apparently  inserted  in  the  frame- 
work of  the  latter.  This  portion  is  composed  chiefly  of 
discourses  and  sayings  (logia)  of  Jesus,  partly  grouped  in 
great  masses  and  partly  dispersed.  Its  extent  is  so  great 
that  it  cannot  have  come  to  the  writer  through  oral  tradi- 
tion. The  logia  reported  to  have'  been  written  by  Mat- 
thew are  probably  its  source.  That  the  evangelist  found 
this  material  in  a  written  form  is  capable  of  proof  by 
tracing  the  logia  back  through  Luke's  revision  of  the  dis- 
courses to  their  original  form,  from  which  they  were  com- 
bined by  the  first  evangelist  into  larger  masses,  and  by 
distinguishing  the  original  sense  of  some  portions  of  them 
from  that  which  they  have  received  in  the  connection 
given  them  by  the  latter,  f  Another  evidence  that  the 
first  evangelist  borrowed  these  sayings  of  Jesus  from  a 
written  document  is  found  in  the  duplicates  of  expressions 
which  he  gives  once  in  the  connection  of  Mark  and  in  de- 
pendence on  his  setting,  and  again  in  a  quite  different 
connection  and  a  modified  setting.  This  phenomenon 
can  only  be  explained  by  the  hypothesis  that  he  regarded 

*  Chap.  xxvi.  1-4,  xxvi.  15,  25,  42,  44,  72,  74,  xxvii.  17,  21.  Weiss,  Ein- 
leit.  p.  520.  That  the  text  of  the  first  Gospel  is  in  the  most  peculiar  narra- 
tive portions  a  literary  revision  of  that  of  Mark,  so  far  as  the  latter  is  wholly 
original,  has  been  shown  by  Weiss  in  a  thorough  parallel  exegesis  in  his 
Marcusevangelium. 

f  Weiss,  Einleit.  p.  521. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW.  189 

the  sayings  which  he  found  in  different  literary  settings  as 
different  expressions.* 

There  are  good  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  first  evan- 
gelist regarded  the  logia,  an  apostolical  writing,  as  his 
principal  source,  and  accordingly  gave  it  the  preference 
over  all  others  at  his  disposal,  whenever  a  question  arose 
as  to  the  form  of  expression  or  actual  contents.  This 
view  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  in  many  cases,  although 
having  the  text  of  Mark  before  him,  he  has  preferred  the 
older  source,  and  so,  in  spite  of  his  dependence  on  the 
former,  has  in  these  passages  preserved  the  original  form.f 
While  many  of  the  critical  conclusions  regarding  the  rela- 
tion of  the  evangelist  to  his  sources  must  be  conceded  to 
rest  on  a  somewhat  fragile  support  of  conjecture,  a  most 
careful  and  patient  examination  of  the  subject,  conducted 
with  freedom  from  bias  and  carried  into  great  detail, 
appears  to  have  shown,  in  the  way  in  which  he  uses  the 
logia  and  Mark,  the  fundamental  thought  of  his  composi- 
tion. This  was  not,  then,  merely  to  enlarge  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  by  the  insertion  of  new  material  from  another  source, 
however  probable  this  purpose  may  appear  on  a  superficial 
glance  at  the  distribution  which  he  makes  of  that  source 
in  his  Gospel,  but  to  expand  into  a  biography  of  Jesus  the 
old  apostolic  document  so  as  to  adapt  it  to  the  needs  of 

*  The  saying  about  the  offending  hand,  etc.,  v.  29  f,  occurs  again,  modi- 
fied according  to  Mark,  in  xviii.  8  ;  that  on  divorce,  v.  32,  again  in  xix.  9  ; 
that  as  to  bearing  the  cross,  x.  38,  again  in  xvi.  24  ;  that  of  the  sign  of 
Jonah,  xii.  39,  again  in  xvi.  4  ;  that  of  wonder-working  faith,  xvii.  20, 
again  in  xxi.  21  ;  and  vice  versa,  that  according  to  Mark  xiii.  12,  again 
according  to  the  logia,  xxv.  29  ;  xix.  30,  again  in  xx.  16  ;  xx.  26,  again  in 
xxiii.  ii  ;  xxiv.  42,  again  in  xxv.  13.  But  the  most  striking  duplicate  of 
the  sort  is  the  series  of  sayings,  x.  17-22,  which,  because  Mark  has  received 
them  into  the  discourse  on  the  Parousia,  xiii.  9-13,  are  repeated,  slightly 
changed,  in  xxiv.  9—13. 

\  Cf.  Matt.  xiii.  24-30,  with  Mark  iv.  26-29. 


I QO  GOSPEL.  CRITICISM. 

his  time  and  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  which,  in  its  existing 
form,  it  no  longer  satisfied.  As  a  means  to  this  end  there 
offered  itself  to  him  the  historical  frame-work  of  Mark's 
Gospel,  which  he  did  not  essentially  modify  except  in  the 
earlier  portions.  But  in  order  to  provide  for  the  abundant 
materials  of  his  chief  source  in  this,  it  appears  to  have 
suited  his  purpose  and  the  plan  of  his  work  to  mass  the 
dispersed  groups  of  sayings  and  parables  which  he  found 
in  the  former  into  larger  and  more  compact  discourses. 
If  the  hypothesis  is  correct  which  assumes  the  logia  to 
have  been  one  of  Luke's  sources,  it  would  appear  from 
the  parables  and  sayings  which  his  record  has  that  are 
not  in  the  first  that  the  author  of  the  latter  did  not 
succeed  in  utilizing  all  the  material  of  the  common  source, 
but  it  is  believed  that  he  has  preserved  it  in  the  greatest 
abundance  and  with  the  utmost  fidelity,  and  accordingly 
in  his  work  has  been  rightly  recognized  the  old  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  although  it  is  an  enlarged  and  greatly  modified 
edition  of  that  writing.* 

The  first  evangelist  and  Luke  being  supposed  to  have 
used  the  logia-source,  the  complete  reconstruction  of  it  is 
made  from  these  two  Gospels,  with  results  varying  accord- 
ing to  the  critical  point  of  view.  Since  the  former  fol- 
lowed Mark's  record  with  considerable  dependence,  it  is 
evident  that  one  cannot  pretend  to  entire  accuracy  in  the 
process  of  separating  between  the  two  sources,  especially 
when  discourses  and  parts  of  them  are  in  question.  The 
reconstructions  by  Weiss  and  Wendt  leave  little  to  be 
expected  from  further  critical  research,  however  much 
they  may  leave  to  be  desired,  f  It  is  believed  that  both 

*  This  is  substantially  the  conclusion  of  recent  criticism  in  the  interest  of 
the  "conservative"  Mark-hypothesis. 

f  Weiss,  Das  Matthausevangelium,  p.  18  f  ;  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  i. 
p.  44  f.  Cf.  Weizsacker,  Untersuchungen,  etc. ;  Reville,  Etudes  sur  Matthieu  ; 
and  Holtzmann,  Einleit. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   MATTHEW.  191 

the  first  and  the  third  evangelists  had  an  independent 
knowledge  of  the  logia,  since  now  the  one  and  now  the 
other  gives  the  source  in  the  greater  completeness,  in  the 
more  correct  connection,  or  with  the  more  original  details. 
It  is  hardly  to  be  assumed,  however,  that  they  had  before 
them  written  copies  of  this  source,  or  if  they  had  them 
felt  constrained  to  follow  their  order  and  arrangement, 
since  their  reproductions  show  many  displacements  of  the 
single  sayings.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  concluded 
from  the  frequent  and  often  surprising  agreement  of  the 
two  in  the  Greek  wording  of  the  logia-fragments  that  the 
source  used  by  them  was  Greek,  and  accordingly  that  if  it 
was  identical  with  the  writing  mentioned  by  Papias,  it 
was  not  known  to  them  in  its  original  Aramaic  form,  but 
in  a  Greek  translation.  This  conclusion  is,  indeed,  not 
unquestionable,  because  we  can  see  from  certain  indica- 
tions that  Luke  was  probably  acquainted  with  our  first 
Gospel  as  well  as  with  that  of  Mark  and  the  logia.  It  is 
hence  possible  that  his  agreement  with  the  first  Gospel  in 
the  wording  of  the  logia-fragments  may  be  explicable  by  a 
reminiscence  of  that  record,  just  as  his  agreement  with  its 
many  slight  modifications  in  the  reproduction  of  the  rec- 
ord of  Mark  is  explicable  on  the  same  ground.  Further, 
it  has  been  concluded  that  the  manner  in  which  the 
writer  of  the  first  Gospel  and  Luke  have  connected  the 
contents  of  the  logia  and  Mark's  record  is  so  far  essen- 
tially different,  as  the  former  has  united  those  portions 
which  are  similar  in  subject-matter,  while  the  latter  has 
inserted  the  principal  contents  of  the  logia  into  Mark's 
account  in  two  great  connected  parts.*  By  this  procedure 
Luke  has  not  only  preserved  single  fragments  of  the  logia 
which  the  first  evangelist  has  omitted  because,  perhaps, 
he  found  in  Mark's  narrative  no  opportunity  of  joining 

*  Luke  vi.  2O-viii.  3,  and  ix.  5i-xviii.  14.     Weiss,  ut  supra. 


GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

them  with  it,  but  has  also  in  general  correctly  reproduced 
the  original  succession  of  these  fragments. 

Our  first  Gospel  does  not,  however,  find  its  complete 
explanation  in  the  two  sources,  the  logia  and  Mark,  but 
contains  portions  which  must  be  assigned  in  all  probability 
to  the  abundant  oral  tradition,  the  existence  of  which  is 
not  only  known  through  Papias,  but  also  through  the 
early  literature  of  the  Church.  The  absence  in  Mark 
of  certain  apparently  legendary  narratives  is  one  of  the 
evidences  commonly  adduced  for  its  greater  antiquity,  or 
at  least  its  more  intimate  relation  to  an  apostolical  source. 
But  the  first  evangelist  appears  to  have  thought  that  an 
account  of  the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus  and  of  his 
appearance  after  his  resurrection  was  necessary  to  a  com- 
plete biography  of  him.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose 
that  written  sources  were  employed  in  the  writing  of 
chapters  i.  ii.  and  xxviii.  The  genealogy  bears  so  plainly 
the  stamp  of  the  writer's  doctrinal  point  of  view  that  there 
can  be  little  doubt  of  its  origin  with  him  in  its  essential 
features.  It  is  Jewish  in  its  character,  and  aims  to  estab- 
lish the  descent  of  Jesus  from  Abraham  and  David.  The 
entire  account  of  the  infancy  has  unmistakable  marks  of 
popular  tradition — naivete,  vagueness  in  regard  to  persons 
and  things,  and  pious  confidence  in  the  incessant  interven- 
tion of  the  finger  of  God  to  make  the  good  cause  triumph.* 
The  theory  of  the  construction  of  the  Gospel  from  sources 
requires  the  reference  to  tradition  of  some  passages  which 
have  already  been  assigned  a  legendary  origin  on  other 
grounds,  f  The  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  tares 

*  Reville,  Etudes,  etc.  p.  185. 

f  In  particular  the  stories  in  which  Peter  is  especially  concerned,  chaps, 
xiv.  28  f,  xvii.  24  f ;  the  end  of  Judas  ;  the  dream  of  Pilate's  wife,  and 
Pilate's  washing  of  his  hands  ;  the  signs  at  the  crucifixion,  and  the  mention 
of  the  corruption  of  the  guards  at  the  tomb,  chap,  xxvii.  Some  sayings  of 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW.  193 

and  of  that  of  the  draught  of  fishes,  *  the  remarks  on  the 
fulfilment  of  prophecy  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  all  other 
portions  of  the  record  which  the  evangelist  has  added 
himself,  are  distinguished  by  a  peculiar  use  of  words 
found  only  in  his  revision  and  clearly  revealing  his  hand. 
On  the  other  hand,  his  dependence  on  documents  shows 
itself  when  sayings  once  given  from  memory  are  re-in- 
serted where  they  appear  to  have  been  found  in  the 
connection  of  one  of  his  sources,  f 

In  the  absence  of  historical  information  as  to  the  place 
and  time  of  the  composition  of  this  Gospel  there  is  no 
recourse  except  to  indications  given  here  and  there  in  the 
narrative.  Weiss'  judgment  that  the  author  did  not  write 
in  Palestine,  but  was  a  Jew  of  the  dispersion,  is  supported 
by  very  good  reasons.  A  Palestinian  would  not  speak  of 
his  country  as  "  that  country."  \  He  appears,  indeed,  as 
has  been  remarked,  to  have  been  a  Jew  learned  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  able  to  read  it  in  the  original,  and  he 
speaks  of  Jerusalem  as  the  holy  city,§  but  there  are  indi- 
cations that  he  was  not  familiar  with  the  geography  of  the 
country  so  as  to  speak  of  the  places  after  the  manner  of  a 
resident  writing  for  residents.  |  Besides,  it  has  been  ques- 

Jesus,  whose  connection  we  are  not  able  to  show  in  the  logia,  may  also  have 
come  to  the  evangelist  through  oral  tradition.  See  chaps,  v.  7  f,  14,  vii.  6,  x. 
16,  xv.  13,  xviii.  10,  xix.  10  f,  xxi.  14  f,  xxvi.  52  f. 

*  Chap.  xiii.  36-43,  49  f. 

f  Compare  ix.  13  with  xii.  7  ;  xvi.  19  with  xviii.  18  ;  x.  15  with  xi.  24,  or 
vice  versa ;  iii.  7  with  xxiii.  33  ;  iii.  10  with  vii.  19. 

\  Chap.  ix.  26,  31,  77  yi)  EHEivrj. 

§  Chap.  iv.  5,  xxvii.  53. 

I  "  The  wilderness  "  of  Mark  is  mentioned  as  "  the  wilderness  of  Judaa" 
and  the  writer  apparently  takes  the  city  on  the  east  coast  of  the  Jordan 
mentioned  in  his  source  for  Gadara,  chap.  iii.  I,  6,  viii.  28,  33.  That  the 
Gospel  was  intended  for  Jews  of  the  dispersion  appears  from  the  fact  that 
the  writer  translates  for  them  the  words  Immanuel,  Golgotha,  and  those 
from  the  Psalms  in  the  prayer  on  the  cross. 


1 94  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

tioned,  with  very  good  reasons,  whether  a  Palestinian  who 
wished  to  enlarge  the  oldest  apostolical  source  would,  in 
Palestine  where  numerous  eye-witnesses  must  still  have 
been  living,  have  depended  almost  entirely  on  the  writing 
of  Mark,  who  was  not  an  eye-witness,  and  would  have 
added  from  an  independent  source  nothing  but  a  small 
number  of  traditions  which  bear  evident  marks  of  being 
second-hand.  The  manner  in  which  he  writes  of  the  set- 
tlement of  the  parents  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth  after  their 
return  with  the  child  from  Egypt  indicates  an  ignorance 
of  their  original  place  of  residence.*  It  has  been  main- 
tained that  certain  passages  in  the  Gospel  are  directed 
against  a  prevailing  gentile-Christian  libertinism,  and  that 
the  evangelist  put  these  denunciations  into  the  mouth  of 
Jesus  with  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  Jewish-Christian 
readers  for  whom  the  Gospel  was  intended  lived  in  the 
midst  of  circumstances  to  which  they  would  apply,  f 
These  intimations  are  supposed  to  refer  to  Asia  Minor, 
where,  according  to  certain  Epistles  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, this  libertinism  appeared  in  a  threatening  form  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  apostolic  age.  From  this  point  of 
view  the  question  as  to  the  original  language  of  the  Gos- 
pel cannot  remain  in  dispute,  since  it  must  have  been, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  the  Greek  in  current  use  by  the 
evangelist  and  his  readers.:): 

The  Jewish  point  of  view  and  interest  of  the  evangelist 
are  plainly  indicated  in  the  Gospel.  An  internal  conflict 
there  is,  indeed,  in  it  between  the  Jewish-Christian  and 
Pauline  tendencies  ;  and  however  this  phenomenon  may 
be  explained,  whether  by  the  hypothesis  of  a  later  revision 

*  Chap.  ii.  22  f,  cf.  Luke  ii.  39. 
f  Chap.  vii.  22  f,  xiii.  41,  xxiv.  12. 
\  Weiss,  Einleit.  p.  535. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   MATTHEW.  195 

of  a  Pauline  writer,  or  by  assuming  that  the  passages 
which  indicate  the  universal  destination  of  Christianity 
belonged  to  the  original  tradition  of  Jesus,  the  ancient 
opinion  that  the  Gospel  was  written  "  for  those  of  the  cir- 
cumcision "  must  be  the  conclusion  of  criticism.  To  the 
historic  sense  there  is  revealed  in  it  the  influence  of  that 
early  strife  over  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  in  which  the  dis- 
ciples must  have  been  engaged  with  their  Jewish  opponents 
in  Solomon's  porch,  when,  for  publishing  "  the  glad  tidings 
concerning  Jesus  the  Christ,"  the  rude  hand  of  authority 
was  laid  upon  them.  Historical  criticism  cannot  regard 
the  book  as  written  without  a  purpose,  or  a  "  tendency," 
to  employ  a  much-abused  and  much-contested  word,  yet 
a  word  which  will  never  disappear  from  the  terminology 
of  this  science.*  The  purpose,  or  "  tendency,"  then,  of 
the  first  Gospel  is  to  convince  the  Jews  of  the  doctrine  \ 
and  to  confirm  the  Jewish  Christians  in  it  that  Jesus  was 
Israel's  true  Messiah.  Along  with  this  is  also  discernible 
a  polemical  purpose,  for  the  Jews  are  scourged  in  it  for 
their  uhsusceptibility  and  obduracy  towards  the  Messianic 
message  as  in  no  other  Gospel,  and  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
to  this  end  are  reported  with  great  fulness  and  detail.f 
To  the  writer  as  to  Justin  Martyr  the  whole  life  of  Jesus 
is  determined  by  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
everything,  even  the  episodes  of  the  passion,  takes  place 
in  order  that  these  may  be  fulfilled.  Jewish,  too,  is  the 
prominence  given  to  legalism  and  to  the  conception  of 
Jesus  as  sent  only  to  the  chosen  people,  as  well  as  the 
oriental  numerical  symbolism  already  referred  to  which 
characterizes  the  literary  method  of  the  writer. 

*  See  chapter  ix.  of  this  work. 

f  Hausrath,  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  1873,  iii.  p.  319  ;  Keim, 
Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  1867,  i.  p.  52  ;  Holtzmann,  Die  synoptischen 
Evangelien,  1863,  p.  381. 


196  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

The  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  in  its  present 
form  is  altogether  a  matter  of  conjecture  so  far  as  any 
precise  determination  of  it  is  concerned,  and  some  modern 
critics  express  more  positive  opinions  regarding  it  than  the 
data  warrant.  It  is  generally  conceded  by  Protestant 
scholars  that  the  final  editing  did  not  take  place  before 
the  year  70  and  that  the  date  of  the  logia  must  be  placed 
several  years  earlier.  The  Gospel  undoubtedly  contains 
passages  which  presuppose  the  existence  of  the  Jewish 
state  and  the  worship  in  the  temple.  But  sayings  retained 
unchanged  from  the  original  source  furnish  no  evidence 
as  to  the  time  of  the  final  revision  of  the  work.  The  pas- 
sage in  which  it  is  declared  that  the  second  coming,  or 
the  Parousia,  will  take  place  "  immediately  after  "  *  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  does  not  prove  that  the  Gospel 
was  completed  before  the  latter  event,  since  the  coming 
of  Christ  might  have  been  expected  immediately  after  it, 
though  the  word  should  not  be  subjected  to  too  great  a 
pressure.  Such  passages  as  that  which  mentions  the  de- 
truction  of  a  city  and  its  inhabitants  for  unbelief,  f  that 
containing  the  threefold  formula  of  baptism,  £  a  formula 
which  is  certainly  of  late  origin,  and  that  indicating  the 
delay  of  the  Parousia,  §  have  decided  the  judgments  of 
some  critics  in  favor  of  a  date  later  than  the  year  70,  and 
have  determined  significant  changes  of  opinion.  |  The 
reasons  of  Hilgenfeld,  Kostlin,  and  Reville  for  placing  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel  about  ten  years  after  the  over- 
throw of  Jerusalem  are  cogent,  but  hardly  conclusive. 
Baur,  who  brings  the  composition  down  to  about  1 30,  and 
finds  in  chapter  xxiv.  an  allusion  to  the  time  of  Hadrian, 
has  not  convinced  many. 

*  svQeooS,  chap.  xxiv.  29.  f  Chap.  xxii.  7. 

\  Chap,  xxviii.  19,  cf.  Acts  ii.  38,  viii.  16,  x.  48,  xix.  5  ;  I.  Cor.  i.  13,  vi. 
II  ;  Gal.  iii.  27  ;  Rom.  vi.  3.  §  xP°r%>Elv,  chap.  xxiv.  48,  xxv.  5. 

I  Notably  in  Keim  and  Holtzmann. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING   TO   LUKE. 

SINCE  Irenaeus'  time""  tradition  has  ascribed  our  third 
Gospel  to  Luke,  who,  according  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,f  was  a  physician,  and  a  friend  and  fellow-laborer 
of  Paul,  and  was  with  him  in  Caesarae  and  Rome.  Little 
is  known  of  his  biography,  but  it  would  appear  from  the 
way  in  which  he  is  mentioned  in  Colossians  that  he  was 
not  "  of  the  circumcision."  His  birth  is  rather  conjec- 
tured than  known,  but  that  he  was  probably  a  Greek  is  ,, 
indicated  by  the  pure  style  of  his  prologue  which  is  in 
strong  contrast  with  the  Hebraizing-Greek  of  his  sources 
in  the  rest  of  the  Gospel.  The  supposition  that  he  was 
one  of  the  seventy  disciples  is  in  contradiction  to  the  ac- 
knowledgment which  he  makes  in  his  prologue  as  to  the 
sources  of  his  information  J  in  which  he  distinguishes  him- 
self and  those  of  his  time  from  the  "  eye-witnesses."  The 
study  of  his  Gospel  naturally  begins  with  the  consideration 
of  this  prologue  by  which  it  is  distinguished  from  the 
other  three  records  in  our  canon.  We  here  learn  from 
him  something  of  his  qualifications  for  his  task  and  of  the 
manner  in  which  he  proceeded  to  accomplish  it.  He 
expressly  compares  his  work  with  that  of  many  others 

*  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.  i,  i. 

f  Chap.  iv.  4,  cf.  Phil.  24,  II.  Tim.  iv.  n,  Epiph.  Haeres.  li.  12. 
\  This  legend  arose,  perhaps,  from  the  fact  that   Luke  alone  gives  the 
account  of  the  seventy,  cf.   Meyer,  Commentar,  i.  2,  p.  224. 

197 


198  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

who  before  him  had  undertaken  from  the  traditions  of 
eye-witnesses  to  write  accounts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and 
evidently  implies  that  he  thinks  himself  able  to  improve 
upon  their  work,  since  he  had  "  accurately  traced  up  all 
things  from  the  first."  He  proposes  also  to  write  a  narra- 
tive which  shall  be  in  order,  *  that  is,  shall  have  a  proper 
chronological  arrangement,  whereby  it  is  perhaps  implied 
that  the  "  many  "  who  had  undertaken  to  write  Gospels 
had  not  satisfied  him  in  this  respect.  The  mention  of 
many  attempts  to  write  similar  accounts  does  not,  how- 
ever, necessarily  imply  Luke's  acquaintance  with  nor  his 
use  of  all  of  them.  Much  less  is  there  sufficient  reason  for 
believing  that  he  combined  them  into  a  mosaic-work 
according  to  Schleiermacher's  theory  of  the  composition 
of  the  Gospel,  with  which  the  author's  claim  to  have 
"  accurately  traced  up  all  things  from  the  first  "  is  hardly 
reconcilable.  On  the  contrary  the  work  has  throughout  a 
uniform  linguistic  character,  and  shows  frequent  traces  of 
recasting  and  critical  revision.  He  did  not,  however, 
compose  the  Gospel  in  the  classic  Greek  of  which  we  may 
infer  from  his  fine  prologue  that  he  was  a  master,  but 
adopted  the  Hebraistic  style  of  his  predecessors  in  this 
kind  of  writing,  thus  yielding  to  the  influence  of  his 
sources  and  his  environment. 

It  appears  from  the  prologue  that  the  Gospel  was  writ- 
ten with  no  general  purpose  of  instructing  mankind  nor 
with  a  consciousness  of  composing  sacred  Scripture  for 
future  generations,  but  especially  for  the  benefit  of  a  friend 
whom  the  writer  names  as  Theophilus.  Nothing  is  known 
of  this  person,  and  his  place  of  residence  is  a  matter  of 
conjecture.  The  opinion  has  been  favorably  received  that 
he  lived  in  Rome.  The  Gospel  was  evidently  written  for 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   LUKE.  199 

a  gentile  reader  or  for  readers  not  familiar  with  Jewish 
localities  and  customs.  This  is  apparent  from  the  expla- 
nations which  the  writer  seems  to  find  it  necessary  to 
make  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  *  of  Nazareth,  of 
Capernaum,  of  Arimathea,  of  the  country  of  the  Gada- 
renes,  of  Emmaus,  and  of  the  Mount  of  Olives.f 

With  regard  to  the  sources  of  Luke's  Gospel  it  is  capa- 
ble of  being  shown  with  great  probability  that  apart  from 
a  few  omissions  the  entire  Gospel  of  Mark  has  been  incor- 
porated into  it  even  more  completely  than  into  the  first 
Gospel.  Even  in  the  rare  cases  in  which  a  fragment  of 
Mark's  narrative  has  been  replaced  from  another  source, 
as  in  the  scene  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  and  in 
Peter's  draught  of  fishes,  criticism  discerns  features  of 
Mark's  representation  interwoven.^  A  departure  from 
the  order  of  Mark  is  made  in  the  position  given  to  this 
scene  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  which  is  placed  im- 
mediately after  the  temptation.  §  The  whole  account 
appears  to  have  been  taken  from  another  source  than 
Mark,  like  that  of  the  calling  of  the  disciples,  which  is  also 
transposed.  The  awkward  attachment  of  the  narrative 
to  that  of  Mark  appears  in  the  twenty-third  verse  where 
acts  done  in  Capernaum  are  presupposed,  while  not  until 
the  thirty-first  verse  is  reached  is  the  removal  to  Caper- 
naum mentioned.  But  apart  from  this  episode  the  order 
of  the  second  evangelist  is  almost  exclusively  followed, 
although  there  are  evidences  in  many  places  of  an  attempt 
to  revise  his  narrative  in  the  matter  of  style,  in  enlarging, 
and  in  explanation.!  So  familiar  is  Mark's  narrative  to 

*  Chap.  xxii.  i.  \  Chap.  iv.  22,  24,  v.  10  f. 

f  Chap.  i.  26,  iv.  31,  xxiii.  51,  viii.  26,  xxiv.  13,  xxi.  37. 
§  Chap.  iv.  16-30. 

I  Revision  in  style,  chap.  iv.  32,  36,  37,  compared  with  Mark  i.  22,  27, 
28  ;  the  explanatory  TtokiS  T.  FaX.,  iv.  31  ;  EXGOV  7Cv-  8<xijLi.  O.KC&.,  iv.  33  ; 


200  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Luke  that  he  frequently  applies  traits  of  it  in  narratives 
derived  from  other  sources,  and  the  influence  of  the  form- 
er's diction  is  evident  in  many  places  in  Luke's  record.* 

Luke  was  not,  however,  confined  to  Mark,  but  among 
his  "  many  "  sources  it  is  possible  to  trace  another 
already  known  to  us  in  the  first  Gospel,  and  probably 
also  in  the  second.  The  recurrence  in  another  connec- 
tion of  sayings  apparently  derived  from  Mark  is  most 
naturally  explained  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  author 
must  have  found  them  in  that  connection  in  a  written 
form.f  The  most  striking  example  of  such  doublets  h 
the  discourse  on  the  occasion  of  sending  out  the  apostles 


Ec,ov6.  H(xi  Svraju.y  iv.  36  ;  dvrsxoju.  rtvp.  jiisydXw,  iv.  38  ;  yev- 
Evri^  fjiiepa's,  iv.  42  ;  the  paraphrase  of  the  K?}pv$(*),  iv.  43  ;  the  more 
accurate  description  pltyav  avr.  et<s  TO  juetfor,  iv.  36  ;  aradrd'5  aito  r. 
6vvay.,  iv.  38  ;  r}pGorr]6ar  avr.  instead  of  Xey.  avr.,  ib;  the  reflective 
remark,  judder  /3A.dif>ar  avr.,  iv.  35.  In  chap.  v.  17  the  presence  of  the 
Pharisees  and  teachers  of  the  law  is  anticipated  ;  in  viii.  23  Jesus'  falling 
asleep  is  mentioned  ;  in  viii.  27,  the  nakedness  of  the  demoniac  ;  in  viii. 
42,  the  age  of  the  maiden  ;  in  viii.  51,  the  presence  of  the  parents.  Weiss, 
Marcusevang.  ,  Einleit.,  etc. 

*  For  Mark's  frequent  evQvZ  Luke  has  Ttapa^prf^a  except  in  chap.  v. 
13,  and  vitdyziv,  elsewhere  avoided,  is  usedinxix.  30,  £/?  TO  Ttlpav\\\  viii. 
22,  and  Na^aprjvoS  for  Na£,a)paio$  in  iv.  34.  Expressions  frequent  in 
Mark  occur  only  rarely  in  the  parallels  in  Luke,  as  naQevdetv,  typai- 
retv,  daijuori^soOat,  diSaxr?,  dirdoor,  draxvt.  Other  favorite  expres- 
sions of  Mark  are  borrowed,  as  upaTEir,  tfv  fyrsiv,  etc.  Davidson  has 
collected  many  peculiarities  of  the  style  of  Luke,  Int.  ii.  p.  56  f.  The  sub- 
ject is  fully  treated  by  Holtzmann,  Die  synopt.  Evangel,  p.  302  f. 

f  The  separate  elements  of  the  series  of  sayings  in  chap.  viii.  16-18 
(Mark  iv.  21-25)  recur  in  chap.  xi.  33,  xii.  2,  xix.  26  ;  chap.  ix.  23-26 
(Mark  viii.  34-38),  in  chap.  xiv.  27,  xvii.  33,  xii.  9.  On  the  other  hand, 
chap.  xx.  46  (Mark  xii.  38)  was  already  in  chap.  xi.  43,  and  chap.  xi.  14, 
in  a  more  original  form  in  xii,  n.  Luke  also  interweaves  sayings  indepen- 
dently which  he  adopts  in  another  place  from  a  connection  probably  existing 
in  a  written  form.  Compare  chap.  xvii.  31  with  xxi.  22,  and  chap,  xviii.  14 
with  xiv.  ii. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  LUKE.  2OI 

which  is  given  once  from  Mark,  and  again  soon  after 
under  a  different  title.*  That  the  discourse  in  the  latter 
form  was  addressed  to  the  twelve  in  Luke's  source  is 
apparent  from  an  allusion  which  it  contains  appropriate 
only  to  them.f  Again,  series  of  sayings  and  parables 
are  often  transplanted  by  Luke  into  a  connection  with 
which  they  do  not  accord,  and  may  accordingly  have 
been  borrowed  from  a  writing  in  which  they  had  a  differ- 
ent connection.^  The  fact  that  the  principal  part  of  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  which  Luke  has,  and  Mark  has  not,  is 
found  in  the  first  Gospel,  and,  indeed,  in  those  elements 
of  it  which  are  assigned  to  the  apostolic  source,  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  same  source  was  used  by  Luke. 
Davidson's  objection  to  this  hypothesis,  that  Luke  would 
not  be  likely  to  use  the  logia-document,  since  the  first 
Gospel  was  in  existence  when  he  wrote,  and  had  sup- 
planted the  former,§  is  entirely  a  priori,  and  rather  sug- 
gests stronger  probabilities  for  the  opposite  view.  For 
the  logia-source,  being  apostolical,  would  naturally  com- 
mend itself  to  an  historian  like  Luke,  while  our  Greek 
Matthew  would  be  regarded  by  him  as  a  work  of  the 

*  Chapters  ix.  and  x. 

\  Chap.  x.  4,  xxii.  35. 

\  The  meaning  of  chap.  xii.  2  is  obscured  by  its  connection  with  the  say- 
ing about  the  leaven,  xii.  i.  The  same  words  ocqur  in  chap.  viii.  17  in  a 
better  connection.  See  also  Mark  iv.  22.  The  sense  of  the  saying  regard- 
ing the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  in  chap.  xii.  10  in  its  connection 
with  xii.  ii  can  hardly  be  the  original  one,  and  just  as  little  that  of  chap, 
xiii.  30  in  connection  with  xiii.  28  f.  The  saying  in  chap.  xiii.  34  is  unin- 
telligible in  its  connection.  The  parables  in  chap.  xiv.  16-24,  xv.  4-10, 
xviii.  2-8,  and  xix.  12-27  betray  meanings  which  do  not  accord  well  with 
their  introductions,  and  those  in  chap.  xiv.  8-14  lose,  by  their  introductions, 
xiv.  7,  12,  their  parabolic  sense,  which  is  definitely  established  by  chap, 
xiv.  ii.  Weiss,  Einleit.,  and  Marcusevangel. 

§  Introduction,  ii.  p.  5. 


202  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

same  rank  as  his  own,  and  perhaps  as  most  of  the  sources 
accessible  to  him.  It  is  not,  indeed,  improbable,  but 
rather  the  contrary,  that  he  knew  and  consulted  our  first 
Gospel,  but,  as  Davidson  acknowledges,  the  evidences  of 
his  use  of  it  are  few.*  On  the  other  hand,  the  indications 
are  very  clear  that  he  made  a  liberal  use  of  the  document 
on  which  the  first  evangelist  largely  depended  for  the 
materials  of  the  discourses  and  the  "  oracles  "  of  Christ, 
adopting  from  it  the  discourse  of  the  Baptist,  that  against 
those  who  asked  for  a  sign,  that  announcing  woes,  the 
second  on  the  Parousia,  and  many  lesser  series  of  sayings 
and  parables. 

The  question  whether  Luke  took  these  discourses  from 
the  first  Gospel  or  from  the  logia-document  finds  its  solu- 
tion in  favor  of  the  latter  alternative,  for  the  reason  that 
he  has  not  in  his  use  of  the  material  followed  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  first  evangelist,  who  has  massed  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  into  great  discourses,  but  has  presented  them 
rather  in  their  original  separation,  with  a  statement  of  the 
occasion  which  gave  rise  to  them,f  or  in  their  evidently 
original  connection.^  Sometimes,  however,  he  gives 
them  without  occasion,  §  or  with  an  incorrect  one,||  or, 
again,  in  a  separation  from  the  fine  connection  of  the  first 
Gospel,  T  a  procedure  which  it  is  difficult  to  account  for 
on  the  hypothesis,  of  his  use  of  the  latter.  The  form  of 
the  parables  of  the  sower  and  of  the  grain  of  mustard  ** 

*  Davidson  quotes  only  two  passages,  but  Simons  has  written  a  volume  on 
the  subject. 

f  Chap.  xi.  1-13,  xii.  13-34,  54~59,  xiv.  25-35,  *vii.  22-37. 

\  Chap.  xi.  33  f.,  xiii.  24-29,  xxii.  25-30. 

§  Chap.  xii.  51  f.,  xiii.  18-21,  xvii.  1-4. 

||  Chap.  xii.  2  f. 

Tf  Chap.  vi.  40,  cf.,  Matt.  x.  24. 

**  Chap.  viii.  4-8  ;  xiii.  18. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  LUKE.  203 

is  probably  the  most  original  in  Luke.  Matthew  appears 
to  have  adopted  them  from  Mark  in  an  altered  form.  In 
the  discourse  on  the  Parousia,  the  second  of  the  inser- 
tions which  the  first  evangelist  makes  from  Mark  is 
omitted,*  and  the  first  one  is  subjected  to  a  very  free 
treatment,t  which  appears  to  indicate  that  it  did  not 
belong  to  the  original  four,  and  was  taken,  not  from  the 
first  Gospel,  where  it  appears  in  an  entirely  different  con- 
nection, but  from  the  logia-document.  Luke's  revision  of 
this  document  is  regarded  as  much  freer  than  that  of  the 
first  evangelist,  so  that  the  form  in  which  he  has  pre- 
served it  is  on  the  whole  not  very  original.  In  both  there 
frequently  appear,  however,  independent  and  different 
revisions  of  the  source.^: 

Both  the  third  and  the  first  evangelists  proceed 
with  independence  and  freedom  in  their  use  of  Mark. 
They  are  not  bound  by  his  arrangement,  and  occasionally 
break  through  it  in  different  ways.  How  both  take  the 
liberty  to  correct  in  different  senses  a  text  that  is  obscure 
may  be  seen  by  consulting  the  parallels  to  Mark  ii.  15-18, 
especially  Matt.  ix.  10,  Mark  ii.  15,  and  Luke  v.  29. 
How  each  in  his  own  way  explains  a  figure  appears  in 
the  case  of  the  warning  as  to  the  leaven  of  the  Phari- 
sees^ and  how  an  obscure  connection  is  variously  cleared 

*  See  Matt.  xxiv.  23  f. 

f  Compare  Luke  xxi.  12-19  with  Matt.  x.  17-22. 

\  The  sermon  on  the  mount  can  hardly  be  original  either  in  the  form  in 
which  the  third  or  the  first  evangelist  gives  it.  The  former  abridges,  the 
latter  enlarges  it.  Transformation  hence  became  necessary.  The  first 
evangelist  gives  seven  beatitudes  in  the  place  of  the  four  of  the  third,  and 
the  latter  reinforces  them  by  a  series  of  woes.  The  parables  of  the  talents 
and  the  supper  are  presented  by  both  allegorically,  but  in  different  ways. 
How  now  in  one,  now  in  the  other,  the  original  is  retained  is  shown  by 
Weiss,  Matthausevangel.  See  Einleit.  p.  540  f. 

§  Mark  viii.,  15  ;  Matt.  xvi.  12,  Luke  xii.  I  f. 


204  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

up  may  be  seen  in  the  parallels  to  Mark  ix.  33—37. 
Luke's  ignorance  or  disregard  of  the  record  of  the  first 
evangelist  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  he  seems  to 
know  nothing  of  the  latter's  characteristic  additions  to 
the  text  of  Mark,  and  all  the  peculiarities  of  the  passion 
and  the  resurrection  in  his  account.  The  prehistorical 
portions  of  the  two  Gospels*  and  their  accounts  of  the 
appearances  of  Jesus  after  the  resurrection  are,  as  has 
been  already  pointed  out,  directly  exclusive  of  each 
other,  f  Of  the  peculiarities  of  language  which  character- 
ize the  first  evangelist  there  is  scarcely  a  trace  in  Luke- 
Weiss  accordingly  concludes  that  it  is  one  of  the  most 
incontestable  results  of  Gospel-criticism  that  Luke  used 
the  apostolic  source  of  the  first  Gospel,  but  was  unac- 
quainted with  that  record  itself.;); 

The  third  Gospel  doubtless  contains  considerable  ma- 
terial which  was  not  derived  from  the  logia-document  and 
Mark.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  precisely  to  determine 
what  this  is,  as  also  to  decide  exactly  what  parts  of  it 
came  from  written  and  what  from  oral  sources.  But  the 
striking  contrast  of  the  narrative  of  the  birth  and  infancy 
of  Jesus,  beginning  at  chapter  i.  5,  in  its  Hebrew-Greek 
with  the  classic  Greek  of  the  prologue  indicates  the  use 
here  of  a  written  source.  Weiss  thinks  it  highly  probable 

*  It  is  doubtful  whether  a  writer  acquainted  with  the  second  chapter  of 
Matthew  could  have  written  Luke  ii.  39  if  he  attached  any  importance  to 
the  former  ;  and  if  he  knew  of  the  genealogy  of  the  first  Gospel  which 
shows  Jesus  to  have  been  a  descendant  of  David  in  the  royal  line  he  would 
hardly  have  traced  his  descent  on  an  obscure  parallel  line. 

f  Luke  must  either  have  been  ignorant  of  the  first  evangelist's  account  of 
the  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  after  the  resurrection,  or  have  disregarded 
it  entirely  in  writing  chapter  xxiv.  49. 

|  This  conclusion  is  not,  however,  the  unanimous  verdict  of  criticism. 
See  Ed.  Simons,  Hat  der  dritte  Evangelist  den  kanonischen  Matthaus 
benutzt  ?  1880.  See  also  Davidson,  Introduction,  ii.  p.  5  f. 


THE   COS? EL   ACCORDING  TO  LUKE.  205 

that  these  materials  were  taken  chiefly  from  one  source 
which  contained  a  complete  biography  of  Jesus,  since  they 
represent  all  sides  of  his  public  life.  This  critic  accord- 
ingly assigns  to  another  source  some  of  the  sections  which 
Wendt  includes  in  the  logia-document.  There  are  pas- 
sages which  are  not  contained  in  Matthew  and  Mark, 
such  as  the  parables  of  the  prodigal  son,  the  rich  man  and 
Lazarus,  the  Pharisee  and  publican,  etc.*  In  the  history 
of  the  passion  there  are  some  portions,  such  as  the 
prophecy  of  the  betrayal,  the  denial,  the  prayer  in  Geth- 
semane,  and  the  proceedings  before  the  council,  which 
differ  so  widely  from  Mark,  while  the  account  of  the  cruci- 
fixion contains  such  striking  additions,  that  the  hypothesis 
of  a  combination  of  another  source  with  the  narrative  of 
the  second  Gospel  appears  to  be  well  grounded.  Much 
diversity  of  opinion  exists  regarding  the  long  interpola- 
tion, chapters  ix.  5i-xviii.  14,  so  called  because  it  inter- 
rupts the  chronology  of  the  narrative  of  Mark,  and  its 
purpose  and  source  have  been  minutely  discussed.  It  is 
ostensibly  an  account  of  Jesus'  journey  to  Jerusalem,  but 
it  does  not  become  parallel  with  Mark  until  chapter  xviii. 
15.  Instead  of  a  direct  journey,  the  narrative  appears 
intended  to  relate  a  leisurely  moving  about,  first  in  the 
direction  of  Samaria,  thence  from  its  inhospitable  borders 
back  to  Galilee,  again  to  arrive  upon  those  borders  in 
chapter  xvii.  1 1.  Hence  Luke  does  not  relegate  the  story 
of  Mary  and  Martha  to  Bethany,  wherein  he  is  in  conflict 
with  the  fourth  Gospel.f  The  general  conclusion  appears 
to  be  justifiable  that  in  this  section  Luke  followed  a  source 
giving,  perhaps,  an  account  of  the  journeys  of  Jesus,  and 
abounding  in  sayings,  discourses,  and  parables,  (some  of 

*  Chap.  xv.  xvi.  xvii.  7-10,  xviii.  1-15,  x.  29-37. 
f  Meyer,  Commentar,  i.  2,  p.  385. 


206  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

which  were  contained  in  the  logia-document),  differently 
placed,  perhaps,  and  modified  in  form,  but  suited  to  the 
Pauline  view  of  Christianity. 

The  early  traditions  regarding  the  composition  of  the 
third  Gospel  recognize  its  Pauline  character,  and  some  of 
them  even  connect  Paul  with  its  origin.  Irenaeus  calls 
Luke's  writing  "  the  Gospel  preached  by  Paul."  *  Tertul- 
lian  says  that  "  Luke's  digest  is  usually  ascribed  to  Paul."f 
Jerome  thought  that  Paul  referred  to  Luke's  Gospel  in 
the  words,  "  The  brother  [Luke]  whose  praise  is  in  the 
Gospel  throughout  all  the  churches,"  J  and  said  that  some 
supposed  that  whenever  Paul  in  his  Epistles  used  the 
expression,  "  according  to  my  Gospel,"  he  meant  that  of 
Luke.  §  It  would,  however,  be  hazardous  to  draw  from 
these  traditions  any  conclusions  relative  to  the  origin  of 
the  Gospel.  They  appear  to  have  arisen  from  a  dogmatic 
interest  to  enhance  the  importance  of  the  record  by  con- 
necting it  with  an  apostle  ;  though  it  is,  of  course,  impos- 
sible to  say  how  much  an  early-discerned  Pauline  tendency 
in  it  may  have  had  to  do  with  their  origination.  While 
Luke  does  not  in  his  prologue  make  any  reference  to  Paul 
as  one  of  his  authorities,  and  connects  him  in  no  way 
with  the  writing  of  the  Gospel,  there  are  throughout  the 
work  certain  points  of  contact  with  him  and  certain  coin- 
cidences of  language  and  thought  which  indicate  an  influ- 
ence exerted  upon  the  writer  by  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
Many  extreme  positions  have  been  taken  by  critics  in 
treating  of  this  matter,  some  of  which  are  little  short  of 
trifling.  The  Pauline  account  of  the  last  supper  is,  how- 
ever, so  similar  to  that  given  by  Luke  that  there  appears 

*  Adv.  Hseres.  iii.  I,  i. 

f  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  2,  5.     See  also  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  25. 
II.  Cor.  viii.  18.  De  Vir  illustr.  c.  vii. 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   LUKE.  2O/ 

to  be  good  reason  for  supposing  the  latter  to  be  a  combi- 
nation of  Mark's  with  the  former.  Some  critics  find  a 
Pauline  diction  in  the  first  two  chapters  which  has  remark- 
able resemblances  to  Romans  ix.— xi.* 

The  historical  point  of  view  of  the  Gospel  is  quite  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  first,  and  indicates  a  more  devel- 
oped apprehension  of  Christianity.  The  writer,  with  his 
Pauline  training  and  environment,  could  not  towards  the 
end  of  the  first  century  produce  such  an  account  of  the 
life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  as  the  Jewish  first  evangelist 
had  produced  from  his  point  of  view  twenty  years  earlier. 
Only  by  a  miracle  could  he  compass  such  a  composition. 
In  "  accurately  tracing  up  all  things  from  the  first  "  he 
could  not  but  give  the  results  affected  by  the  Christian 
consciousness  of  the  time  as  it  took  form  in  his  own  per- 
sonality. Hence  in  his  narrative  the  distinctively  Jewish 
coloring  is  effaced.  The  Jewish  state  is  in  ruins,  Chris- 
tianity has  become  a  world-religion,  and  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  record  the  descent  of  its  Founder  is  traced  as 
"  a  second  Adam,"  from  the  progenitor  of  the  race  "  who 
was  the  son  of  God."  Accordingly,  the  messengers  of 
Christianity  are  no  longer  merely  the  twelve  apostles, 
corresponding  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  but  the 
seventy,  who  are  sent  forth  with  no  injunction  limiting 
them  to  Jewish  circles,  but  to  gather  the  "  great  harvest." 
On  the  scene  appear  the  humble  publican  contrasted  with 
the  self-righteous  Pharisee,  the  Samaritan  who  returned 
to  give  thanks  for  his  cure,  the  other  Samaritan  who  was 

*  Davidson,  ii.  p.  12.  Many  words  and  phrases  are  used  which  are  found 
only  in  Paul's  writings,  as  aiKfJ-akcori^Eiv ,  dvaXwoai,  dvarts/iiTtEtr, 
drrartodojiia,  endiaoHeir,  xvpievsiv,  etc.  But  the  danger  is  manifest  of 
inferring  too  much  from  such  isolated  verbal  resemblances,  a  long  list  of 
which  might  be  given. 


208  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

the  type  of  brotherly  love,  the  sinful  woman  with  her  love 
and  faith,  the  penitent  thief  on  the  cross.  The  legend  of 
Jesus  has  had  more  time  for  development,  and  has  not 
been  slow  to  improve  it.  Hence  expansion  at  the  begin- 
ning in  the  tradition  of  the  birth  and  infancy,  and  expan- 
sion at  the  end  in  that  of  the  appearances  after  the 
resurrection.  The  personality  of  Jesus  has  increased  in 
dignity  and  power.  With  greater  majesty  he  moves 
among  the  scenes  of  his  ministry,  and  before  him  Satan 
falls  like  lightning  from  heaven.  On  the  cross  he  yields 
up  his  life  with  no  cry  of  abandonment  and  pain,  but  with 
an  assured  commendation  of  his  spirit  to  the  Father. 

The  Gospel  furnishes  no  definite  indication  of  the  place 
of  its  origin.  Modern  criticism  has  generally  decided  in 
favor  of  Rome,  particularly  with  reference  to  the  same 
author's  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  whose  Roman  origin  is  very 
probable.*  The  author's  use  of  the  Roman  Gospel  of 
Mark  is  favorable  to  this  view,  and,  according  to  Hilgen- 
feld,  the  way  in  which  he  attempts  to  exculpate  Pilate  in 
the  matter  of  Jesus'  execution.  Kostlin  decides  for  Hel- 
lenistic Asia  Minor,  and  an  ancient  tradition  points  to 
Achaia  or  Macedonia.  At  all  events,  there  can  be  no 
question  that  the  Gospel  originated  outside  of  Palestine 
and  in  gentile-Christian  territory.  Hilgenfeld  questions 
that  Luke  was  the  author,  but  gives  no  very  good  reasons 
for  this  doubt.f 

Indications  of  a  later  date  than  that  of  the  other  two 
synoptics  are  furnished,  particularly  in  the  eschatological 
discourses,  but  the  data  which  these  furnish  are  not  very 
definite.  After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  Gospel 
appears  certainly  to  have  been  written,  and  at  a  time  when 
the  expectation  of  an  immediate  return  of  Christ  was  no 

*Zeller,  Theol.  Jahrb.  1850,  p.  360.  f  Die  Evangelien,  p.  225. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  LUKE.  2(X) 

longer  entertained.  The  Parousia  is  not  set  forth  with 
the  vividness  of  the  delineation  of  the  first  Gospel,  but 
with  more  reserve  and  vagueness.  There  appears  to  be 
a  critical  revision  by  the  author  of  the  earlier  expres- 
sions regarding  the  advent.  He  does  not  make  the  disci- 
ples ask  Jesus  to  reveal  "  the  time  of  his  coming  and  of 
the  end  of  the  world/'  but  only  "  when  these  things,"  the 
overthrow  of  the  temple,  etc.,  "  shall  be."  In  the  first 
Gospel  the  coming  of  Christ  is  placed  "  immediately  after 
the  tribulations  "  of  Jerusalem's  fall,  but  in  Luke  "  the 
end  is  not  immediately."  *  Luke's  delineation  of  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  in  his  rendering  of  the  forecast  of 
it  was  evidently  written  some  time  after  the  event,  and 
the  ill-fated  city  is  represented  as  trodden  down  by  the 
gentiles  until  their  times  should  be  fulfilled.!  The  perse- 
cutions of  the  Christians  in  the  time  of  Trajan  appear  to 
be  described,  and  among  the  signs  of  the  impending  final 
judgment  is  perhaps  a  reference  to  a  phenomenon  of  the 
eruption  of  Vesuvius  in  the  time  of  Titus,  the  "  roaring  of 
the  sea  and  waves,  men's  hearts  failing  them  for  fear."  \ 
The  situation  appears  to  be  one  of  distress  which  must  be 
endured  under  the  yoke  of  foreign  dominion,  and  great 
steadfastness  and  watchfulness  are  required.  This  view 
does  not  exclude  a  forecast  by  Jesus  of  the  fate  of  the 
Jewish  state,  but  is  based  on  a  critical  judgment  of  the 
influence  of  the  writer's  historical  environment  upon  the 
form  of  his  narrative,  or,  in  other  words,  is  the  result  of  a 
study  of  the  record  as  literature.  The  probable  date  of 
the  composition  of  the  Gospel  is  about  the  year  90,  and 
the  reasons  given  for  placing  it  later  do  not  appear  to  be 
conclusive. 

*Matt.  xxiv.,  Luke  xxi.  f  Chap.  xxi.  24. 

t  /<*.  25,  26. 
14 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO   JOHN. 

THE  study  of  the  first  three  Gospels  has  shown  them 
to  represent  a  definite  type  of  the  biography  of 
Jesus  both  in  respect  to  his  personality  and  the  character 
and  theatre  of  his  ministry.  But  the  ordinary,  uncritical 
reader  cannot  but  feel,  when  he  turns  to  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, that  he  enters  a  different  realm  of  thought,  and 
approaches  a  unique  conception  of  Jesus  regarding  his 
person  and  his  manner  of  teaching.  He  will,  indeed,  note 
some  points  of  contact  with  the  synoptic  narrative,  but 
whether  or  no  he  construe  the  peculiarities  with  which  he 
meets  as  due  to  a  purpose  to  represent  another  phase  of 
the  character  and  life  of  Jesus,  he  will  be  unable  to  escape 
the  sense  of  a  different  environment  and  spiritual  atmos- 
phere from  that  which  he  experienced  in  reading  the  other 
Gospels.  To  the  critical  reader,  however,  the  contrast  is 
more  striking,  and  has  been  observed  and  expressed  by 
the  great,  both  among  the  ancients  and^the  moderns.  To 
Clement  of  Alexandria  this  writing  was  a  spiritual  Gos- 
pel ;  *  to  Origen  the  firstling  of  all  scripture  ;  f  to  Luther 
the  only,  tender,  true  chief-Gospel ;  J  and  to  Herder  the 
echo  of  the  older  Gospels  in  the  higher  choir.  §  As  it  is 
the  fundamental  difference  of  this  Gospel  from  the  synop- 

*  TO  Ttvf.v)j.ariKov  svayyi-Xiov,  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  14. 

f  ctTtapxtf  itdtirjt,  ypacpijS.     In  Job.  tome  i.  5. 

\  Das  einzige,  zarte,  rechte  Hauptevangelium. 

§  Der  altesten  Evangelien  Nachklang  im  hoheren  Chor. 

210 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  211 

tic  narratives  which  first  draws  the  attention  of  the  casual 
reader  and  of  the  critic,  so  it  is  with  the  consideration  of 
it  that  the  study  of  the  work  naturally  begins.  No  great 
importance  could  rightly  be  attached  to  this  difference  if 
it  concerned  only  such  superficial  matters  as  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  material  of  the  history,  slight  discrepancies  as 
to  the  time  and  place  of  events,  and  such  peculiarities  as 
appear  in  the  first  three  when  compared  with  one  another. 
But  the  facts  of  the  case  are  such  as  to  warrant  the  words 
of  one  of  the  most  candid  critics,  which  express  the  judg- 
ment of  many  scholars  of  great  learning  and  sincerity  : 
"  The  difference  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  other 
three  affects  the  whole  conception  of  the  person  and 
teaching  of  Christ  and  the  fundamental  distribution  of  the 
events  of  his  public  ministry."  * 

The  attentive  reader  who  passes  from  the  study  of  the 
synoptic  Gospels  to  that  of  the  fourth  finds  his  attention 
at  once  arrested  by  its  prologue.  He  is  taken  off  his  feet. 
He  has  left  the  solid  ground  of  history,  and  is  caught  up 
into  the  aerial  regions  of  speculation.  The  oldest  Gospel 
had  introduced  him  to  its  story  with  the  simple  words : 
'*  The  beginning  of  the  good  news  of  Jesus  Christ."  The 
next  in  order  had  proceeded  at  once  to  make  him 
acquainted  with  the  human  genealogy  of  Jesus.  The 
third  had  informed  him  concerning  the  historical  sources 
by  which  its  record  was  authenticated.  But  this  Gospel 
ushers  him  into  the  realm  of  the  supersensible  amidst  the 
elements  of  "the  beginning,"  and  tells  him  strange  things 
of  a  Logos  who  was  God,  and  was  with  God,  through 
whom  all  things  were  made,  who  became  flesh,  and  dwelt 

*An  Attempt  to  Ascertain  the  Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  especially 
in  its  Relation  to  the  Three  First,  by  John  James  Tayler,  B.A.,  London, 
1867. 


2 1 2  GOSPEL-  CRITICISM. 

among  men.  Here  is  no  longer  a  simple  story  of  the  son 
of  David  with  his  human  parentage,  the  representative  of 
his  people,  the  heir  and  restorer  of  their  ancient  glory, 
but  a  mystic  speculation  concerning  a  personal  revelator 
of  the  Eternal,  a  celestial  Light  coming  forth  from  the 
bosom  of  God  and  flashing  upon  the  uncomprehending 
darkness  of  the  world.  The  reverse  of  a  historical  method 
is  this  of  the  prologue.  The  reader  is  introduced  at  once 
into  an  ideal  world,  and  led  to  expect  a  -philosophical 
treatment  of  history  dominated  by  a  dogmatic  conception 
derived  from  the  Alexandrian  speculations.  The  prologue 
justifies  the  reader  in  looking  for  a  treatment  of  the 
evangelic  material  more  or  less  affected  by  a  "  tendency," 
or  a  purpose  to  establish  a  theory,  if  not  by  invention,  at 
least  by  a  handling  of  the  matter  adapted  to  effect  a  pre- 
determined conviction.  He  finds,  in  fact,  such  an  expec- 
tation confirmed  towards  the  end  of  the  record  where  the 
evangelist  declares  with  great  na'ivet£  that  the  Gospel  has 
been  written  precisely  to  establish  the  reader's  belief  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.*  How  different  is  all  this 
from  the  synoptic  narratives  in  which  Jesus  appears  upon 
the  open  field  of  history  without  a  speculative  background, 
submitting  to  the  baptism  of  John,  enduring  temptation 
in  the  wilderness,  engaged  in  a  real  process  of  develop- 
ment, withholding  Messianic  pretensions  until  the  full 
consciousness  of  his  mission  is  attained,  beginning  his 
wonderful  works  by  no  display  of  almighty  power,  but  by 
the  healing  of  demoniacs  and  cures  prompted  by  compas- 
sion !  In  these  records  the  background  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  is  the  unadorned  social  life  of  his  countrymen 
which  conspires  with  his  personality  to  make  him  what 
he  becomes.  There  is  a  charming  conformity  to  nature 

*  Chap.  xx.  30,  31. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  21$ 

in  this  setting  of  his  biography.  For  Jesus  needed,  as 
Keim  remarks,  not  alone  a  John  in  order  to  be  himself, 
but  a  believing  people  in  order  that  in  the  charm  of  his 
mind  instead  of  mere  logic  and  in  the  reciprocity  with 
men  wonders  might  happen,  and  meditative  souls  at  his 
feet  in  order  that  he  might  climb  the  full  height  of  his 
destiny. 

This  Gospel  also  introduces  us  to  a  new  series  of  events. 
After  the  writer  descends  to  the  ground  of  reality  from 
the  region  of  philosophic  speculation  in  which  he  moves 
in  the  prologue,  he  places  before  us  things  strange  to  us 
as  readers  of  the  synoptists.  There  are  new  words  of  the 
Baptist  to  the  messengers  of  the  Sanhedrim,  of  Jesus  to 
John's  disciples  who  had  come  to  him;  new  situations, 
such  as  baptism  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus  as  well  as  by 
John  ;  the  carrying  of  a  common  purse  whose  bearer  was 
Judas;  the  attempt  of  Galileans  to  make  Jesus  a  king; 
the  visit  of  Greeks  to  him ;  new  persons,  as  the  Samari- 
tan woman,  the  nameless  man  born  blind,  Nicodemus, 
Lazarus ;  and  new  localities,  as  Enon,  Salim,  Ephraim, 
Bethany  on  the  Jordan.  The  theatre  of  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  is  quite  different  in  this  Gospel  from  that  of 
the  synoptic  tradition.  In  the  latter  Jesus  appears  first  in 
Capernaum,  and  is  occupied  during  the  first  half  of  his 
ministry  about  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  The  second  part  is 
employed  in  the  northern  borders,  and  Luke  gives  inti- 
mations of  a  journey  towards  the  south.  But  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  Judea  is  the  principal  field  of  Jesus'  work. 
According  to  the  synoptists  Jesus  made  but  one  journey 
to  Jerusalem  after  the  beginning  of  his  public  ministry, 
and  that  towards  the  end  of  it.  Then  he  cast  the  money- 
changers out  of  the  temple.  But  according  to  the  fourth 
Gospel,  this  purification  of  the  temple  was  performed  at 


214  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  which  touched  Galilee  in 
occasional  excursions  mostly  of  short  duration.*  This 
change  of  theatre  required  a  change  of  representation. 
Hence  the  greater  part  of  the  peculiar  synoptic  narratives 
find  no  place  in  this  new  arrangement  of  the  biography  of 
Jesus.  We  miss  the  characteristic  teachings  of  the  earlier 
tradition,  the  temptation,  the  numerous  healings,  the 
demoniacs,  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  the  discourse  from 
the  boat,  the  thronging  Galileans,  the  transfiguration. 
There  is  a  change  in  time  also.  This  new  biography 
could  not  find  room  within  the  limits  of  the  synoptic 
narrative  with  its  brief  Galilean  episodes  and  its  single 
journey  to  the  final  tragedy  in  Jerusalem.  According  to 
these  Jesus  attends  but  one  passover,  and  his  ministry 
appears  to  occupy  but  about  one  year,  while  his  public 
ministry  as  detailed  in  the  fourth  Gospel  extends  over 
about  double  that  time. 

Striking  characteristics  in  strong  contrast  to  the  older 
Gospels  are  presented  in  this  record,  in  the  relation  which 
discourses  and  narratives  hold  to  each  other,  as  well  as  in 
the  peculiarities  of  the  discourses  themselves.  This  pro- 
portion results  from  the  purpose  of  the  Gospel  to  set  forth 
the  inner  essence  and  nature  of  Jesus,  rather  than  to  pro- 
duce a  biography.  Accordingly,  discourses  and  sayings 
intended  to  be  self-revelations  predominate,  and  doings 
hold  a  subordinate  place.  The  history  illustrates  the 
idea,  is  there  for  its  sake,  and  hence  is  made  secondary  to 
it.  Often  it  is  incomplete,  as  if  the  writer,  mastered  by 
his  purpose  of  idealization  and  hurried  on  to  a  spiritual 
or  metaphysical  result,  had  dropped  the  thread  of  his 
narrative,  and  forgotten  to  take  it  up  after  he  had  carried 
the  story  so  far  as  was  necessary  in  order  to  furnish  occa- 

*  Chap.  ii.  12,  iv.  43,  vii.  I. 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  21$ 

sion  for  the  unfolding  of  the  Logos-idea.*  Nothing  dis- 
tinguishes this  Gospel  from  the  others  in  so  marked  a 
manner  as  the  discourses  ascribed  to  Jesus.  In  the 
synoptics,  Jesus  speaks  in  the  popular,  simple  Eastern 
style  which  abounds  in  proverbs  and  parables.  He 
speaks  as  a  man  of  the  people,  addressing  himself  in 
homely  terms  to  the  simple-minded.  But  in  this  Gospel 
the  profound  allegory  takes  the  place  of  the  easy  parable, 
and  instead  of  the  pithy,  brief,  but  luminous  sentences, 
with  which  he  clothes  his  thought  in  the  synoptics,  there 
prevails  here  a  stilted  and  strained  style  of  discourse,  which 
is  often  pursued  at  length,  regardless  of  the  capacity  of 
the  supposed  hearers,  and  with  frequently-recurring  mis- 
understandings on  their  part.  Often  a  discourse,  which 
begins  on  a  well-defined  occasion,  takes  a  wide  range,  and 
ends  with  the  occasioning  incident  and  itself  hanging  in 
the  air,  nothing  having  been  accomplished  but  the  enforce- 
ment of  a  doctrine  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus. f  We 
also  miss  in  these  discourses  the  practical  interest,  the 
direct  aim  at  conduct,  which  pervades  all  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  in  the  synoptic  records,  the  admonitions  to  self- 
denial  and  tender  mercy,  the  warnings  against  the  perils 
of  riches,  worldly  lust,  and  care,  the  lesson  of  the  sower, 
the  blessing  on  the  poor,  the  preaching  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  the  conditions  of  entering  it.  The  kingdom 
recedes  to  give  place  to  the  personality  of  Jesus,  which  is 
advanced  into  the  foreground,  although  by  no  means 
treated  in  a  manner  adapted  to  the  popular  understanding. 
Weizsacker  well  expresses  the  impression  which  the  dis- 
courses of  the  fourth  Gospel  make  upon  the  reader  when 

*  For  example,  it  is  not  related  what  was  the  effect  on  Nicodemus  of  the 
discourse  which  Jesus  delivered  to  him,  chap.  iii.  1-22,  and  whether  or 
no  the  Greeks  attained  their  object,  chap.  xii.  20-22. 

•j*  Compare  the  "  conversation  "  (?)  with  Nicodemus. 


2 1 6  GOSPEL.  CRI TJCISM. 

he  says  that  it  is  one  of  "  hardness,"  of  a  succession  of 
glaring  lights  uninterrupted  by  any  softening.* 

The  tendency  of  the  fourth  evangelist  to  glorify  the 
person  of  Jesus  perhaps  best  explains  the  character  of  his 
apprehension  and  record  of  the  "  signs  "  which  he  ascribes 
to  him.  Their  difference  from  the  miracles  recorded  in 
the  synoptics  is  striking  and  significant.  The  compassion- 
ate, humane  Son  of  Man  who  went  about  doing  good,  so 
charmingly  portrayed  in  general  by  the  synoptics,  appears 
to  have  made  little  impression  upon  this  writer,  whose 
attention  was  enchained  by  his  conception  of  the  heaven- 
descended  Logos,  who  performs  wonderful  works  of  the 
most  astounding  nature,  who  is  never  "  unable  "  to  com- 
pass them,  who  possesses  marvellous  insight  and  foresight,f 
knows  what  is  in  man,  and  is  never  said  to  have  the  senti- 
ment of  pity.  His  public  ministry  is  introduced  (in  a  way 
how  different  from  that  of  the  synoptists !)  with  the  amaz- 
ing miracle  of  turning  water  into  wine,  a  miracle  which 
appears  to  be  entirely  uncalled  for,  except  to  "  manifest 
his  glory"  and  become  a  "sign."J  The  narrative  of  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand  is  related  with  a  manifest 
purpose  to  exalt  Jesus,§  as  is  that  of  the  healing  of  the 
nobleman's  son,  which  has  other  features  that  distinguish 
it  to  the  point  of  irreconcilability  from  that  of  the  first 
and  second  Gospels.  Instead  of  being  at  Capernaum, 
according  to  the  latter,  Jesus  is  at  Cana,  a  place  twenty- 
five  miles  distant.  Instead  of  offering  to  go  to  the  house 
to  heal  the  son,  Jesus  accosts  the  nobleman  with  a  rebuke. 
In  the  synoptics,  the  man  tells  Jesus  not  to  trouble  him- 

*  Untersuchungen  iiber  die  evangel.  Gesch.  p.  250. 
f  Chap.  iv.  64,  xiii.  3,  xviii.  4. 

\  drfjuetor,  used  by  this  writer,  but  by  the  synoptists  only  in  a  bad  sense. 
The  synoptic  word  SvvdueiS,  "  mighty  works,"  he  never  uses. 
§  Chap.  vi.  5,  6. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN. 

self  to  go  to  the  house,  but  to  speak  the  word  only,  while 
here  he  supplicates  him  to  come  down  ere  his  child  die. 
The  important  incident  of  the  nobleman's  faith  at  which 
Jesus  marvelled,  according  to  the  synoptics,  is  omitted. 
Jesus'  marvelling  at  anything  does  not  accord  with  the 
point  of  view  of  this  writer.  Without  entering  upon  a 
discussion  of  the  question  as  to  the  historical  character  of 
the  wonders  recorded  in  this  Gospel,  and  waiving  all  con- 
siderations touching  their  symbolical  purpose,  one  cannot 
but  regard  it  as  indicating  a  decided  "  tendency  "  that  the 
man  born  blind  should  be  declared  to  have  been  so  born 
in  order  that  the  works  of  God  might  be  made  manifest 
in  him  (a  strange  teleology,  surely !),  and  that  Lazarus 
should  be  said  to  have  died  that  the  son  of  God  might  be 
glorified !  The  incidents  connected  with  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Lazarus  all  tend  to  the  same  end  as  the 
preceding  accounts.  Jesus  is  represented  as  glad  that  he 
was  not  present  during  the  illness  of  Lazarus,  in  order 
that  his  disciples  may  believe.  He  appears  to  let  him  die 
in  order  that  he  may  raise  him,  remaining  where  he  was 
two  days  after  he  had  heard  of  his  illness.  Though  he  had 
to  be  informed  of  his  friend's  danger,  he  knows,  apparently 
by  a  miraculous  prescience,  that  he  is  dead,  yet,  arrived 
at  the  place,  inquires  where  he  was  buried.  At  the  grave 
he  prays  "for  the  sake  of  the  multitudes"  "that  they 
may  believe."  He  calls  the  dead  man  from  the  tomb  by 
a  word  of  almighty  power  in  order  that  "  the  glory  of 
God  "  may  be  manifested.  History  all  this  may,  indeed, 
be,  but  the  conclusion  can  hardly  be  avoided  that  it  is 
history  subordinated  to  an  idea. 

Preliminary  to  the  discussion  of  the  historical  character 
of  the  Gospel  a  consideration  of  its  sources  is  important. 
It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  the  evangelist, 


2l8  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

whoever  he  may  have  been,  composed  the  work  by  a  tour 
de  force  of  pure  invention.  Should  the  theory  that  he 
wrote  it  under  the  influence  of  a  dogmatic  purpose  be  es- 
tablished, it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  he  proceeded 
independently  of  the  abundant  materials  for  writing  a 
Gospel  which  must  have  been  within  his  reach,  or  that  he 
was  not  affected  in  his  mode  of  expression  and  even  in  his 
ideas  by  the  existing  Christian  literature.  The  synoptic 
Gospels  had  certainly  been  for  some  time  in  existence 
when  he  wrote,  and  his  use  of  their  material  to  some  ex- 
tent is  now  admitted  by  the  critics  of  the  most  opposing 
schools.*  Along  with  the  many  sayings  in  honorable 
mention  of  Peter  which  Baur  notices  we  are  reminded  of 
the  first  Gospel  by  the  gentle  beast  of  the  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem, the  sword-scene  in  Gethsemane,  Mary  at  the  tomb, 
the  son  of  the  centurion,  etc.  There  are  points  of  contact 
with  the  synoptic  narratives  in  the  account  of  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  temple,  with  the  difference  in  time  already 
pointed  out ;  in  that  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude ;  in 
,  that  of  the  walking  on  the  sea,  with  marked  discrepancies, 
since  the  account  in  the  fourth  Gospel  implies  that  Jesus 
did  not  go  into  the  boat ;  in  that  of  the  anointing  at  Beth- 
any, in  which  there  are  divergencies  from  the  older 
accounts ;  in  that  of  the  public  entry  into  Jerusalem  ;  in 
Jesus'  pointing  out  his  betrayer  ;  and  in  the  history  of  the 
passion  and  resurrection.  In  all  this  contact  with  the 
earlier  records  the  evangelist  uses  the  greatest  freedom, 
and  does  not  scruple  at  numerous  variations  in  things 
small  and  great.  He  gives  the  synoptic  sayings  of  Jesus 
which  he  uses  in  quite  new  and  independent  connections. 
The  sayings  regarding  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and 

*  Baur,   Hilgenfeld,   Keim,   Ewald,   Holtzmann,    Godet,   Hengstenberg, 
Luthardt,  Weizsacker,  Wittichen,  and  others. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  2 19 

the  naming  of  Peter  are  placed  at  the  beginning  instead  of 
the  end  of  the  history.  There  appear  to  be  some  points 
of  contact  in  the  Gospel  with  the  Pauline  ideas  and 
forms  of  expression,  particularly  in  regard  to  the  rela- 
tion of  the  law  and  the  dispensation  of  grace,  but  the 
resemblances  are  not  close  enough  to  warrant  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  writer  was  familiar  with  the  Pauline  thought 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  have  made  it  his  own.*  The  ques- 
tion of  the  sources,  says  Keim,  leaves  us  undecided  how 
we  ought  to  explain  the  strong  novelties  and  the  bold  de- 
viations of  the  Gospel.  Is  it  the  living  stream  of  oral  tra- 
dition, is  it  the  eye-witnesship  of  the  author  which  justifies 
or  excuses  him,  or  must  not  one  in  many  points  rert  in 
the  belief  that  he  made  a  free  literary  transformation  of 
the  history  on  the  ground  of  a  philosophical  and  religious 
idea  which  according  to  his  own  confession  he  would 
serve  ?  f 

The  tendency  of  the  modern  criticism  of  the  Gospel  is 
towards  an  affirmative  answer  to  this  latter  question. 
Baur's  objections  to  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospel 
from  this  point  of  view,  however  extreme  and  overwrought 
some  of  them  may  be,  have  never  been  entirely  overcome, 
and  their  influence  appears  still  in  the  judgment  of  moderate 
and  conservative  critics,  like  Weizsacker  and  Wendt,  who 
maintain  some  connection  of  the  apostle  John  with  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel.  In  arriving  at  a  decision  as 
to  the  historical  character  of  the  record  much  depends,  of 
course,  on  the  conception  of  history  with  which  one  sets 
out.  Judged  by  the  most  rigid  conception  of  history,  per- 
haps no  one  of  the  four  Gospels  could  be  pronounced  a 

*  Holtzmann  gives  a  long  list  of  parallel  passages  which  show,  indeed, 
some  greater  or  less  similarities  of  thought.  But  one  cannot  decide  to  what 
extent  these  ideas  may  have  been  the  common  property  of  the  time. 

f  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  i.,  p.  121. 


220  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

strictly  historical  composition  throughout.  But  it  would 
be  manifestly  improper  to  apply  such  a  standard  to  any 
one  of  them.  A  history  free  from  all  ideal  and  legendary 
elements  could  not  without  a  miracle  have  been  written 
under  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Gospels  originated. 
If,  then,  we  take  the  synoptic  records  as  representing  the 
sort  of  history  which  one  might  fairly  suppose  would  be 
written  by  Christians  living  near  the  end  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, we  cannot  but  see,  if  we  will  lay  aside  prepossessions 
as  much  as  possible,  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  widely 
different  type  of  composition  from  even  these. 

Not  to  dwell  on  the  speculative  themes  which  dominate 
the  Gospel,  and  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  disturbing 
to  the  historical  development  of  any  composition  dealing 
with  the  materials  of  history,  it  is  evident  to  the  unbiassed 
student  that  the  purpose  is  not  purely  historical.  The 
comparison  of  it  with  the  synoptic  narratives  shows  clearly 
a  selective  aim  in  the  use  of  material  and  consequently  a 
one-sidedness.  An  eclectic  Gospel,  as  Keim  remarks,  is 
a  one-sided  Gospel.  In  passing  over  many  parts  of  the 
history  of  Jesus,  as  we  must  conclude  it  does  if  we  give 
credence  to  the  synoptics,  and  adhering  tenaciously  to 
another  part  of  it,  it  has,  as  even  Weizsacker  acknowledges, 
presented  only  a  "half-true  picture"  of  his  life.  The  impres- 
sion which  it  makes  is,  besides,  that  of  a  completed  work 
the  supplementing  of  which  from  the  other  records  would 
be  a  proceeding  of  great  violence.  To  transfer  to  it  the 
material,  and  still  more  the  spirit,  of  the  discourses  and  acts 
of  Jesus  out  of  the  others  would  be  to  create  a  phantom, 
a  hermaphrodite  of  unnaturalness  and  contradictions.* 
This  dispensing  with,  or  rather  downright  exclusion  of, 
a  long  series  of  correct  traditions  has  been  rightly  regarded 

*  Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu,  p.  122. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  221 

as  inconsistent  with  a  genuine  historical  aim.  The  theory 
that  the  Gospel  was  written  with  the  design  of  supple- 
menting the  synoptic  records  is  untenable  on  the  ground 
that  it  in  part  repeats,  and  in  part  directly  traverses,  their 
narratives. 

The  subjective  character  of  the  Gospel  has  been  repeat- 
edly pointed  out.  It  is  not,  of  course,  to  be  expected  that 
a  writer  should  conceal  himself  in  composing  a  history ; 
but  it  is  evident  that,  just  to  the  degree  in  which  he 
obtrudes  himself,  in  that  degree  is  the  historical  character 
of  his  composition  prejudiced.  Now  in  this  Gospel  the 
personality  of  the  writer  is  excessively  prominent.  Not 
only  are  the  discourses  ascribed  to  Jesus  and  the  narrative 
portions  marked  by  a  uniformity  of  style  and  peculiar 
turns  of  expression  which  give  them  the  appearance  of 
having  been  cast  in  the  same  mould,  but  commentators 
find  it  difficult  in  many  cases  to  separate  the  words  of 
Jesus  from  the  reflections  of  the  evangelist.  It  is  evident 
that  the  writer  has  put  himself  into  the  entire  book  to 
such  a  degree  as  very  much  to  prejudice  its  historical 
character.  One  cannot  but  ask,  and  criticism  has  often 
asked,  how  the  writer,  even  if  an  ear-witness,  could  have 
retained  in  memory  these  long  discourses  of  Jesus,  which 
are  the  more  difficult  for  the  memory  on  account  of  their 
peculiar  character.  That  discourses  which  often  have  no 
point  of  attachment  in  events,  are  wanting  in  logical  con- 
nection, and  are  suspended  in  the  high  regions  of  specu- 
lation, could  have  been  accurately  reproduced  by  the 
memory,  is  a  psychological  incredibility.  That  they 
could  have  been  handed  down  through  oral  tradition, 
as  the  pithy  sayings  and  parables  of  the  synoptics  doubt- 
less were,  may  confidently  be  declared  impossible.  Even 
those  critics  who  attempt  to  maintain  the  essential  integ- 


222  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

rity  of  the  discourses  by  the  supposition  that  the  assumed 
author,  John,  had  become  imbued  with  the  teachings  of 
Jesus,  and  had  made  his  spirit  and  thought  his  own,  are 
obliged  to  admit  the  "  subjective  freedom  "  of  the  writer 
in  the  construction  of  these  long  disquisitions.  But,  sub- 
jective freedom  admitted,  the  question  cannot  but  arise  to 
what  extent  the  historical  credibility  of  the  Gospel  is 
affected  by  it.  Is  the  mode  of  teaching  which  is  here 
attributed  to  Jesus,  and  is  so  fundamentally  different  from 
that  which  the  synoptists  gathered  from  Matthew's  logia 
and  from  the  oral. tradition,  the  actual  historical  method? 
All  that  is  most  trustworthy  in  the  tradition  of  Jesus 
represents  him  as  speaking  in  such  a  way  that  the  common 
people  heard  him  gladly,  employing  such  terse,  epigram- 
matic, and  parabolic  forms  of  clothing  his  ideas  as  go 
straight  to  the  popular  mind,  and  make  a  tenacious  and 
lasting  oral  tradition.  The  long,  diffuse,  involved,  and 
philosophic  discourses  in  the  fourth  Gospel  cannot  be  the 
historical  words  of  the  great  Teacher  of  the  synoptic 
tradition,  if  that  tradition  is  to  be  accepted  as  essentially 
authentic.  The  "  subjective  freedom "  of  the  writer 
appears  to  have  been  exercised  to  the  extent  that  it  has 
totally  transformed  the  method  of  teaching,  and,  more 
than  this,  has  substituted  an  Alexandrian  mysticism  for 
plain,  practical,  every-day  morality.  "  The  limpid  spon- 
taneity of  that  earlier  teaching,  with  its  fresh  illustrations 
and  profound  sentences  uttered  without  effort  and  un- 
tinged  by  art,  is  exchanged  for  diffuse  addresses  and 
artificial  dialogues,  in  which  labor  and  design  are  every- 
where apparent." 

The  historical  credibility  of  the  Gospel  has  also  been 
called  in  question,  in  view  of  its  relation  to  Paul  and  the 
early  controversies  in  the  Church  between  Jewish  and 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  22$ 

Pauline  Christians.  Attention  has  already  been  called  to 
the  points  of  contact  with  Pauline  thought  in  the  Gospel. 
Whether  the  writer  had  studied  the  theology  of  Paul  in 
the  Epistles  of  this  apostle,  or  had  elsewhere  learned  it, 
certain  it  is  that  his  representation  of  the  attitude  of  Jesus 
towards  the  Jews  and  the  gentiles  is  so  decidedly  Pauline 
that  the  opposition  of  the  apostles  and  Jewish  Christians 
generally  to  the  tendency  represented  by  the  apostle  to 
the  gentiles  is  unintelligible  on  the  presumption  of  the 
historical  truth  of  the  Gospel.  Had  the  apostles  known 
Jesus  to  have  taught  as  he  is  here  represented  as  teaching, 
they  could  not  have  opposed  Paul,  and  had  Paul  known 
it,  he  could  not  have  failed  to  appeal  to  such  an  authority. 
With  all  the  spiritualizing  of  the  law  in  the  synoptics, 
Jesus  there  announces  that  he  came  not  to  abrogate  but 
to  fulfil  it,  and  that  not  one  jot  or  tittle  should  pass  from 
it  until  all  be  fulfilled.  No  such  declaration  is  put  into  his 
mouth  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  nor  does  the  evangelist 
express  any  such  sentiment.  The  spirit  of  the  record  is 
that  which  belongs  to  a  later  development  of  Christianity 
under  the  influence  of  Pauline  ideas.  The  words,  "  The  law 
was  given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ,"  *  are  quite  Pauline,  and  imply  that  there  was 
neither  grace  nor  truth  in  the  old  dispensation.  Christ 
is  made  to  disclaim  the  functions  of  the  law,  since  he 
came  not  into  the  world  to  judge  it.f  Eternal  life  comes 
only  of  faith  in  the  Son.:):  The  temple-worship  passes 
away  to  give  place  to  the  spiritual  worship,  which  is 
bound  to  no  place.§  No  more  spiritual  importance  is 
attached  to  the  Old  Testament  than  to  say  that  "the 
Jews"  think  they  have  eternal  life  in  it.  Indeed  "the 

*  Chap.  i.  17.        f  Chap.  iii.  7,  v.  24.        \  Chap.  iii.  36 
§  Chap.  iv.  23 


224  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life."  Moses  is  depre- 
ciated. It  was  no  "  true  bread  "  that  came  through  him.* 
"  The  Jews "  appear  as  foreigners  in  this  Gospel,  and 
Jesus  is  made  to  speak  to  them  of  the  law  as  "your  law/' 
"  their  law."  They  are  of  the  Devil,  and  do  the  works  of 
their  father.  The  almost  shocking  declaration  is  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  that  all  who  came  before  him  were 
thieves  and  robbers.  This  even  surpasses  Paul  in  down- 
right anti-Judaism ;  and  unless  it  be  conceded  that  the 
"  subjective  freedom  "  of  the  evangelist  has  greatly  modi- 
fied the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus,  so  that  we  have  here  the 
idealization  of  a  later  time  and  not  pure  history,  then  the 
great  Pauline  controversy  of  the  apostolic  age  remains  an 
enigma,  perhaps  "a  phantom,  a  dream,  a  folly." 

No  more  striking  illustration  of  the  influence  of  dog- 
matic prepossession  appears  in  theological  literature  than 
is  furnished  in  the  voluminous  discussions  of  the  his- 
torical evidence  as  to  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.  From  a  few  data  of  no  very  complicated 
or  obscure  character  the  most  contradictory  conclusions 
have  been  drawn,  and  the  judgments  as  to  the  time  when 
the  Gospel  was  first  recognized  in  Christian  literature  differ 
by  about  three  quarters  of  a  century.  The  protracted 
discussion  of  the  question  has,  however,  tended  to  bring 
all  students  who  are  not  extremists  nearer  to  agreement, 
and  there  is  ground  for  the  hope  that  a  correct  conclusion 
is  attainable  by  those  who  will  bring  an  unbiassed  judg- 
ment to  the  consideration  of  the  matter.  Truth  ever 
escapes  the  partisan,  pursue  he  never  so  hotly.  Begin- 
ning with  Papias  whose  writing  referred  to  by  Eusebius 
probably  dates  130—140,  we  find  that  his  New-Testament 
canon,  if  the  term  may  be  allowed,  was  limited  to  an 

*  Chap.  v.  49. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  22$ 

original  writing  by  Matthew,  (the  logia,)  one  by  Mark,  the 
first  Epistle  of  John  and  the  first  of  Peter.  He  also 
acknowledges  the  Apocalypse  as  a  writing  of  the  apostle 
John.  It  is  remarkable  that  he  makes  no  mention  of 
Luke's  Gospel,  of  Paul's  Epistles,  and  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel. Did  he  mention  only  such  writings  as  were  in  his 
opinion  traceable  to  the  original  apostles,  Peter's  sup- 
posed connection  with  the  second  Gospel  bringing  it 
under  this  category  ?  Did  he  know  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  omit  to  mention  it  because  he  did  not  regard  it  as  of 
apostolic  origin  ?  Or  was  it  not  known  to  him,  or,  indeed, 
not  yet  in  existence  ?  Or,  again,  did  he  mention  it  and 
Eusebius  fail  to  report  his  words  concerning  it?  The 
affirmative  of  this  last  question  is  a  glaring  improbability, 
although  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold  thinks  that  "  the  good 
Bishop  of  Caesarea"  had  a  "  very  loose  fashion"  or 
"  little  stringency  of  method,"  and  might  have  failed  to 
mention  so  important  a  matter.*  If  Eusebius  was  right 
in  saying  that  Papias  used  testimonies  from  the  first 
Epistle  of  John,  then  the  Gospel  was  probably  in  exist- 
ence in  Papias'  time,  since  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  was  the  author  of  the  Gospel. 
But  Zeller  tries  to  show  that  the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  was 
a  poor  critic  and  made  mistakes,  and  that  he  is  not  to  be 
depended  on  in  his  testimony  that  Papias  was  acquainted 
with  the  first  Epistle  of  John.  Davidson,  however,  re- 
pudiates such  criticism  as  "  scarcely  fair,"  while  holding 
against  the  great  majority  of  scholars  that  the  Epistle 
and  Gospel  had  different  authors.  The  conclusion  of  a 
"  fair  "  criticism  seems  to  be  that  the  Gospel  was  probably 
in  existence  as  early  as  140,  but  that  Papias  for  reasons 
about  which  it  is  idle  to  speculate  did  not  mention  it. 

*  God  and  the  Bible,  1883,  p.  242. 
15 


226  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

The  Tubingen  critics,  so  far  as  they  follow  Baur  in  dating 
the  composition  of  the  Gospel  as  late  as  170-180,  strenu- 
ously deny  that  Justin  (147-160)  made  any  citations  from 
it  or  was  acquainted  with  it.  Certain  it  is  that  his  use  of 
it,  if  he  used  it  at  all,  was  very  slight,  since,  although  he 
makes  more  than  one  hundred  quotations  which  have  strik- 
ing resemblances  to  synoptical  passages,  we  find  very  few 
passages  which  can  even  be  called  reminiscences  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  and  only  one  or  two  which  have  the 
appearance  of  quotations.  When  he  calls  Christ  "  the 
blameless  and  just  light  sent  by  God  to  man/'  when  he 
employs  as  a  favorite  word  akrjSivo*,  "  true,"  so  often 
used  in  this  Gospel,  and  speaks  of  the  "  blood  of  Christ 
sprung  not  from  human  seed,  but  from  the  will  of  God,"* 
he  appears  to  show  a  familiarity  with  the  record  in  ques- 
tion. Familiarity  with  a  Christological  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  is  indicated  in  the  words  in  reference  to  Christ : 
"  He  was  an  only-begotten  son  of  the  Father,  sprung 
from  him  *  *  *  and  afterwards  born  a  man  through  the 
virgin,"  etc.f  The  term  )Aovoyevr]$j  "  only-begotten,"  here 
used  by  Justin  is  applied  to  Jesus  only  in  the  fourth 
Gospel.  To  say  that  it  was  a  word  already  current  in 
a  certain  Christian  school  has  much  the  appearance  of 
an  evasion  in  view  of  the  whole  evidence  from  Justin. 
The  fact  that  in  the  last  clause  of  the  passage  Justin 
refers  to  the  synoptic  accounts  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  does 
not  show  that  he  had  no  other  source  nor  does  it  require 
that  the  term  "  only-begotten  "  be  explained  out  of  the 
first  three  Gospels,  since  two  sources  may  as  fairly  be 
assumed  as  one.  In  fact,  the  passage  appears  to  be 
the  product  of  reminiscences  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and 
the  synoptics. 

*  Dial.  c.  63,  cf.  John  i.  13.     f  Dial.  c.  105. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  22/ 

The  most  important  passage  from  Justin  is  that  on  the 
new  birth,  and  runs  thus  :  "  Christ  said,  unless  ye  be  born 
anew  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Now, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  those  once  born  to  enter  into  the 
wombs  of  those  that  bore  them,  is  obvious  to  all  men."  * 
Now,  since  Justin  did  not  derive  his  knowledge  of  the 
teachings  of  Christ  from  traditions,  but  depended  on 
writings,  the  question  which  this  citation  raises  is  simply, 
from  what  writing  did  it  probably  come  to  him  ?  Was  it 
taken  from  the  synoptics,  from  some  apocryphal  Gospel, 
or  from  the  fourth  Gospel?  That  the  matter  presents 
difficulties,  cannot  be  denied.  For  "  born  anew  "  he  does 
not  use  the  words  of  the  fourth  evangelist,  yswrfdri  avoa- 
6ev  but  draysvrjdrjTSj  a  word  which  does  not  occur  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  nor,  indeed,  anywhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment except  in  I.  Peter  i.  3,  23.  Again  he  says  "  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  an  expression  peculiar  to  the  first  Gospel, 
while  in  the  fourth  "  kingdom  of  God  "  occurs  through- 
out. These  facts  have  seemed  to  Baur  and  others  to  war- 
rant the  conclusion  that  Justin  did  not  know  the  fourth 
Gospel,  but  derived  the  words  in  question  from  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews.f  But  the  last  clause  of  the 
passage  is  so  like  the  words  in  the  fourth  Gospel  as  to 
leave  little  doubt  that  the  whole  passage  is  a  free  quota- 
tion from  it,  or  rather  an  adaptation  or  reminiscence.  Of 
quotations  in  the  strict  sense  Justin  makes  none  from  our 
Gospels,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  he  wrote 
these  words  with  the  fourth  Gospel  before  him.  But  it  is 
only  the  exigencies  of  a  theory  which  can  lead  any  one  to 
judge  that  he  had  in  mind  only  the  passage  from  Matthew, 

*  Apol.  i.  61,  cf.  John  iii.  3-5. 

f  Krit.  Untersuch.  uber  die  kan.  Evangel,  p.  352  ;  Davidson,  Introd.  ii. 
P-  375- 


228  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

"  Except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Yet 
Tubingen  critics  have  advocated  this  view.  One  who  has 
no  theory  to  serve  will,  however,  naturally  conclude  that 
while  Justin  may  have  taken  the  passage  from  some  other 
source,  our  fourth  Gospel  being  the  only  one  known  to 
contain  anything  resembling  it  closely,  the  presumption 
is  in  favor  of  its  existence  in  his  time  and  of  his  knowl- 
edge of  it.  Baur  asks  why,  if  Justin  took  this  passage 
from  the  fourth  Gospel,  he  did  not  quote  it  correctly.  It 
is  surprising  that  any  one  familiar  with  Justin's  loose  way 
of  quoting  should  raise  this  question.  Baur  also  objects 
that  it  is  improbable  that  if  Justin  knew  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  acknowledged  it  as  of  apostolic  origin,  he  would  have 
quoted  so  little  from  it.*  Here  lurks  a  fallacy.  For  the 
two  questions  whether  Justin  knew  the  Gospel  and  whether 
he  believed  it  to  be  of  apostolic  origin  should  be  kept  dis- 
tinct. The  former  can  be  answered  with  great  probability 
in  the  affirmative,  while  for  the  latter  the  grounds  are 
quite  uncertain,  if  any  exist  at  all.  We  have  found  in  our 
study  of  the  canon  that  not  only  Justin  but  also  writers 
of  a  later  time  than  his  were  in  the  habit  of  making  liberal 
use  of  Gospel-writings  without  .regard  to  the  question  of 
their  origin  or  canonicity.  As  to  Justin's  reasons  for  not 
making  more  citations  from  the  fourth  Gospel,  it  is  evident 
that  we  can  only  speculate  about  them.  It  is  possible 
that  its  marked  difference  from  the  other  Gospels  known 
to  him  led  him  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  its  representa- 
tion of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Certain  it  is  that  his  con- 
ception of  Jesus'  manner  of  teaching  could  not  have  been 
derived  from  this  record,  but  only  from  the  synoptic  ac- 
counts or  others  similar  to  them.  For  he  says :  "  Short 

*  Krit.  Untersuch.,  etc.,  p.  353. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  22Q 

and  concise  are  the  sayings  that  came  from  him,  for  he  was 
not  a  sophist,  but  his  word  was  a  power  of  God."  * 

The  question  respecting  the  testimony  of  Basilides 
(125-130)  to  the  fourth  Gospel  cannot  be  so  easily  decided 
as  some  partisans  appear  to  think.  The  work  "  Against 
Heresies  "  or  Philosophumena,  falsely  ascribed  to  Origen 
and  by  some  thought  to  be  the  work  of  Hippolytus,  appears 
to  state  that  Basilides  referred  to  the  words,  "  That  was  the 
true  light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world,"  as  "that  spoken  in  the  Gospels,"  and  that  he 
used  many  other  passages  which  resemble  words  contained 
in  the  fourth  Gospel.  There  is,  however,  some  doubt 
whether  the  author  of  the  work  refers  to  Basilides  or  his 
school.  The  work  was  written  about  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  and  if  the  reference  was  to  the  followers  of 
Basilides  it  would,  of  course,  establish  nothing  as  to  the 
existence  and  use  of  the  Gospel  in  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century.  It  appears  that  the  writer  of  Philosophu- 
mena was  careless  as  to  the  use  of  the  verb  "  says,"  f  with- 
out a  definite  subject,  so  that  it  is  not  easy  to  determine 
whether  he  refers  to  Basilides  or  his  school.  Sometimes 
he  speaks  of  Basilides  and  his  son,  and  other  Gnostics,  and 
"  the  whole  choir  of  these "  or  "  the  whole  school  of 
them,"  J  and  then  quotes  them  with  the  verb  "  says."  It 
is  remarkable  that  nowhere  in  his  work  does  he  mention 
John,  except  as  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  pronounce  positively  on  this  question,  although 
Matthew  Arnold  and  Ezra  Abbot  are  positive  against 
Tayler,  Davidson,  and  the  great  majority  of  the  critical 

*  fipaxetZ  ds  KOCL  <5vvro}JLoi  itap  avrov  Xoyoi  ysyoratiiv,  ov  ydp 
6o(pi6rr)<>  vitrjpxev,  aX\.d  dvvajuiZ  Qsov  6  "kayoS  avrov  rfv.  Apol.  i.  14. 
f  (prjtiir. 
\  rtd$  6  ro^TGov  xopot,  rtdtia  rj  TOVTGOV 


230  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

school  that  Basilides  is  quoted.  So  much,  at  least,  is  cer- 
tain, that  if  Basilides  is  quoted  in  this  work,  his  testimony 
establishes  no  more  than  that  the  Gospel  was  in  existence 
and  approved  by  a  Gnostic  soon  after  the  first  quarter  of 
the  second  century ;  but  that  it  was  written  by  John  is 
not  established,  nor  is  anything  made  known  regarding 
its  origin. 

The  earliest  account  that  we  have  in  Christian  literature 
of  the  composition  of  this  Gospel  is  contained  in  a  frag- 
ment in  the  canon  of  Muratori,  which  has  already  been 
quoted  in  the  chapter  on  the  canon,  where  its  legendary 
character  was  pointed  out.  Towards  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century  Epiphanius  preserved  the  tradition  connecting 
John  with  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel.  He  says  that 
John  wrote  last,  reluctantly,  and  because  he  was  con- 
strained to  write,  and  that  he  wrote  in  Asia  at  the  age  of 
ninety.  Athenagoras,  who  wrote  his  "  Plea  for  the  Chris- 
tians "  and  "  The  Resurrection  of  the  Dead  "  about  177, 
has  some  passages  which  bear  a  very  strong  resemblance 
to  Johannine  thought.  He  as  well  as  Justin  held  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos,  but  since  it  was  current  in  the 
thought  of  the  time,  and  may  be  traced  to  Philo,  the 
fourth  Gospel  was  not  necessarily  its  source.  He  speaks 
of  "  the  one  God  who  made  all  things  through  the  Word 
proceeding  from  Him,"  but  he  makes  no  definite  reference 
to  John  or  the  Gospel.  The  first  Epistle  to  Diognetus  is 
"  deeply  imbued  with  Johannine  thought,"  such  as,  "  He 
sent  His  Son  in  love,  not  to  judge,"  and  "  They  are  not  of 
the  world,  as  I  am  not  of  the  world."  But  there  is  no 
indication  of  the  source  of  these  sayings.  Tatian,  too,  a 
pupil  of  Justin,  appears  to  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Gospel,  although  he  does  not  expressly  refer  to  it.  About 
the  year  180,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  in  a  writing  addressed 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  2$ I 

to  Autolychus,  makes  the  first  distinct  reference  to  the 
Gospel,  and  attributes  it  to  John,  although  he  does  not 
say  the  apostle  John.  He  classes  it  among  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures, and  calls  its  author  "  inspired,"  *  thus  giving  him  a 
place  among  canonical  writers. 

The  conclusions  regarding  the  external  evidence  for  the 
Gospel  appear  to  be  that  there  is  a  strong  probability  of 
its  existence  soon  after  the  first  quarter  of  the  second 
century  ;  that  it  was  perhaps  known  to  Papias,  though  not 
used  by  him  so  far  as  our  data  enable  us  to  judge  ;  that 
it  was  known  to  Justin,  but  very  sparingly  used  by  him 
for  reasons  which  we  can  only  conjecture  ;  that  any  earlier 
use  of  it  is  doubtful ;  that  there  are  very  strong  indications 
of  its  use  by  Athenagoras  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to 
Diognetus  ;  that  there  is  a  legendary  tradition  as  to  its 
Johannine  authorship  and  its  revision  by  certain  associates 
of  John,  which  dates  from  about  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century  (canon  of  Muratori)  ;  that  prior  to  this 
latter  date  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  kind  which  connects 
John  with  its  composition  or  makes  any  reference  to  its 
authorship  ;  and  finally  that  about  180  appears  the  first 
distinct  expression  of  the  opinion  that  John  was  the  author 
and  that  the  Gospel  was  regarded  as  canonical.  The  cau- 
tious and  unbiassed  student  of  the  early  Christian  literature 
soon  learns,  however,  not  to  place  too  much  reliance  upon 
tradition,  particularly  when  he  meets  with  it  in  the  legen- 
dary form  in  which  that  of  the  canon  of  Muratori  presents 
itself.  He  feels  in-need  of  precisely  the  sort  of  confirma- 
tion which  in  most  cases  is  not  to  be  had,  the  grounds  on 
which  this  or  that  writer  based  his  assertions  regarding 
the  origin  of  books,  a  knowledge  of  the  evidence  which 
was  before  him,  if,  indeed,  there  was  any,  and  he  did  not 

*  7tVEVJJ,aT6(pOpO<s. 


232  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

proceed  upon  mere  rumor  credulously  accepted.  The 
student,  for  example,  would  like  to  know  the  sources  of  the 
information  on  which  Theophilus  makes  the  assertion  that 
John  wrote  the  fourth  Gospel.  Since,  according  to  a  very 
good  tradition,  there  were  two  Johns,  he  naturally  asks 
which  of  them  Theophilus  had  in  mind  ;  how  Theophilus 
knew  that  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  was  a  Trrsv^arocpopos ; 
whether  or  no  he  had  informed  himself  regarding  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel  so  as  to  be  able  to  tell  whether 
the  John  in  question  actually  wrote  the  Gospel  himself  or 
was  somehow  indirectly  connected  with  its  authorship  ; 
and  finally,  what  sort  of  a  man  this  Theophilus  intellectu- 
ally was.  A  fair  view  of  the  matter  appears  to  be  that  of 
Matthew  Arnold  :  "  Tradition  may  be  false  ;  yet  it  is  at 
least  something  *  *  *  in  a  thing's  favor  that  men  have 
delivered  it.  But  there  may  be  reasons  why  we  cannot 
believe  it."  If,  then,  there  be  reasons  why  we  cannot 
believe  the  tradition  respecting  the  authorship  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  by  the  apostle  John,  at  least  if  we  are  to 
understand  it  as  testifying  to  his  immediate,  personal 
composition  of  it,  these  reasons  must  be  found  in  the 
Gospel  itself,  and  we  are  remanded  to  a  study  of  it  as  the 
only,  if  not  altogether  satisfactory,  means  of  settling  the 
question,  so  far  as  it  is  capable  of  definitive  settlement. 

In  pursuance  of  this  aim  and  in  view  of  the  limits  within 
which  the  treatment  of  the  subject  is  here  confined,  it 
becomes  necessary  to  omit  a  consideration  in  detail  of  the 
question  of  the  relation  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the 
Revelation  with  reference  to  the  problem  of  authorship. 
On  the  theory  that  the  apostle  John  wrote  the  Revelation, 
and  his  authorship  of  this  work  is  better  attested  exter- 
nally than  his  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  it  has  been  argued 
with  great  cogency  that  the  same  person  could  not  have 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  233 

written  the  Gospel.  The  difference  of  the  two  writings  is 
so  great  in  spirit,  point  of  view,  aim,  and  language  that 
identity  of  authorship  is  most  improbable.  The  writer 
who  in  the  Revelation  shows  himself  a  true  "  son  of  thun- 
der," as  John  is  designated  in  the  synoptic  narratives, 
could  not  have  produced  the  spiritual,  gentle  fourth 
Gospel.  On  the  other  hand  it  has  been  argued  that  the 
two  writings  have  resemblances  which  indicate  identity  of 
authorship.  Again,  some  of  the  ablest  scholars  have  con- 
tended that  there  are  not  sufficient  grounds  either  external 
or  internal  to  support  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the 
Revelation,  while  they  find  arguments  which  appear  to 
them  conclusive  that  the  "beloved  disciple"  was  the 
author  of  the  Gospel.  Others  hold  that  John  wrote 
neither  of  these  works,  and  Keim  and  Lutzelberger  deny 
altogether  the  story  of  his  residence  in  Asia  Minor.  The 
most  recent  criticism  of  the  Revelation  makes  it  a  com- 
posite work  containing  Jewish  and  Christian  elements 
assignable  to  dates  separated  by  a  period  of  sixty  or 
seventy  years,  and  completed  as  late  as  the  year  136.* 
But  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  this  book  is  not  of 
essential  importance  in  the  consideration  of  that  of  the 
Gospel,  although  its  solution  would  throw  light  upon  some 
of  the  problems  involved.  To  waive,  then,  the  investiga- 
tion of  a  matter  so  complicated  will  simplify  without 
seriously  prejudicing  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of 
immediate  concern. 

Among  matters  internal  to  the  Gospel  bearing  on  the 
question  of  authorship,  belong  the  passover-controversy 
and  the  divergence  of  this  record  from  the  synoptics  as  to 
the  day  of  the  crucifixion.  The  synoptists  expressly 

*  The  subject  is  discussed  with  considerable  fulness  in  Martineau's  Seat 
of  Authority  in  Religion,  1890,  p.  217-227. 


234  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

state  that  Jesus  partook  of  the  passover-supper  which  was 
eaten,  "  according  to  the  law,"  on  the  evening  of  the  I4th 
of  the  Jewish  month  Nisan.  Accordingly,  he  must  have 
been  crucified  on  the  I5th  of  the  month.  The  fourth 
Gospel  is  equally  explicit  in  the  statement  that  when 
Jesus  was  brought  before  Pilate  the  passover-supper  was 
still  in  the  future,  for  the  writer  says,  that  the  Jews  "  went 
not  into  the  judgment-hall  lest  they  should  be  defiled,  but 
that  they  might  eat  the  passover."  *  It  follows  that 
according  to  this  record  the  crucifixion  was  on  the  I4th 
Nisan,  or  one  day  earlier  than  according  to  the  synoptists. 
There  is  no  question  that  there  is  here  an  irreconcilable 
difference  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  others  as  to 
the  day  of  the  crucifixion.  The  attempts  of  extreme  par- 
tisans like  Hengstenberg  and  Wieseler  to  reconcile  the 
discrepancy  have  been  shown  to  be  futile  by  Bleek,  who 
maintained  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel.  All  attempts 
to  make  it  appear  that  this  evangelist  is  correct  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  synoptists  have  failed.  But  the  matter 
does  not  end  with  a  discrepancy  between  the  records.  The 
question  whether  or  no  the  I4th  Nisan  was  the  day  on 
which  Jesus  ate  the  passover  with  his  disciples  was  con- 
tested in  the  second  century  between  the  Eastern  and 
Western  branches  of  the  Church,  or  rather  a  controversy 
arose  which  turned  upon  this  question.  This  has  been 
called  the  passover-controversy.  It  appears  that  the 
churches  in  Asia  were  accustomed  to  celebrate  on  the 
I4th  Nisan,  a  feast  of  the  "  passover  of  salvation,"  or  a 
communion  in  commemoration  of  the  last  paschal  meal  of 
Jesus  with  his  disciples.  Eusebius  says  :  "  The  churches 
in  Asia,  guided  by  a  more  ancient  tradition,  supposed 
that  they  ought  to  keep  the  I4th  day  of  the  moon  as  a 

*Chap.  xviii.  28. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  235 

festival  of  the  passover  of  salvation,  on  which  day  the 
Jews  were  wont  to  kill  the  paschal  lamb."  *  The  I4th 
Nisan  was  accordingly  observed  as  a  festival-day  by  the 
partaking  of  a  supper  in  the  evening. 

The  Roman  Christians,  breaking  away  from  bondage  to 
all  rites  which  had  a  connection  with  Judaism,  ignored 
the  passover-feast,  and  transferred  their  memorial  of  the 
Saviour  to  the  day  of  his  resurrection,  that  is,  to  Easter 
Sunday,  which  they  celebrated  as  a  yearly  festival  uniting 
the  ideas  of  a  crucifixion-  and  resurrection-passover.f 
Those  who  observed  the  I4th  Nisan  were  called  quarto- 
decimans.  Now,  in  the  course  of  the  long  controversy 
between  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches  over  this  ques- 
tion which  was  finally  settled  by  the  council  of  Nice  in 
favor  of  the  Roman  usage,  it  is  important  to  observe  that 
appeal  was  made  by  the  former  to  the  practice  of  the 
apostle  John  in  regard  to  the  celebration  in  dispute. 
This  was  not  far  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
when  the  Gospel  was  probably  in  existence,  which  places 
the  crucifixion  on  the  I4th  Nisan.  Yet  the  Romans  did 
not  appeal  to  its  authority,  although  it  would  have  favored 
their  view.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  discussion  between 
Anicetus  of  Rome  and  Polycarp  of  the  East,  we  find  that 
the  latter  maintained  his  position  on  the  strength  of 
John's  custom  of  observing  the  I4th  of  the  month  as  the 
day  on  which  Jesus  ate  the  passover-supper,  while  accord- 
ing to  the  fourth  Gospel  that  supper,  if  eaten  at  all,  must 
have  been  eaten  on  the  evening  of  the  I3th,  since  the 
crucifixion  was  on  the  I4th.  Polycrates  (190)  writing  as 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  to  Victor  of  Rome,  appeals  to  the 
practice  of  the  "  great  lights  "  of  the  Eastern  Church  who 

*  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  23. 

I  A  7td(5x.a.  6Tavpoa<5ifiov  and  a 


236  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

"  observed  the  genuine  day,"  and  among  them  to  "  John 
who  rested  upon  the  bosom  of  our  Lord,"  and  to  Poly- 
carp,  "both  Bishop  and  martyr."  All  of  them,  he  says, 
"  observed  the  I4th  day  of  the  passover,  according  to  the 
Gospel,"  i.e.,  of  course,  the  synoptical  records.  Accord- 
ingly, these  "  great  lights "  can  have  recognized  this 
account  only  as  correct,  and  even  John  followed  it  in 
opposition  to  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  How,  then, 
knowing  that  Jesus  partook  of  the  last  meal  with  his 
disciples  on  the  evening  of  the  I4th,  and  was  crucified  on 
the  1 5th,  could  he  have  written  the  chapter  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  which  is  directly  contradictory  to  these  facts  ?  No 
more  glaring  contradiction  can  be  conceived  than  that  a 
man  should  have  written  thus  of  the  day  of  the  crucifixion 
and  have  joined  the  quartodecimans  in  keeping  the  pass- 
over-feast  on  the  1 4th  of  the  month,  particularly  when  his 
views  are  expressed  by  Hippolytus  to  the  effect  that, 
"  Christ  celebrated  the  passover  on  that  very  day  (the 
I4th),  and  I,  therefore,  must  do  as  the  Lord  did." 

The  fourth  Gospel  was  not,  however,  wholly  out  of  the 
controversy,  for  one  writer  at  least,  Apollinaris  (170),  in  a 
fragment  of  his  work  on  the  question  in  dispute,  not  only 
indicates  the  discrepancy  between  it  and  the  other 
records,  but  places  in  a  true  light  the  real  nature  of  the 
issue.  Writing  in  opposition  to  the  quartodecimans,  he 
says  :  "  They  say  that  on  the  I4th  the  Lord  ate  the  lamb 
with  his  disciples,  and  suffered  himself  on  the  great  day 
of  unleavened  bread  ;  and  they  explain  Matthew  as  stat- 
ing the  matter  in  accordance  with  their  own  ideas.  Hence 
their  notion  is  irreconcilable  with  the  law,  and  according 
to  their  views  the  Gospels  seem  at  variance."  *  These 

*  The  evils  resulting  from  the  quartodeciman  theory  are  thus  said  to  be 
two  :  a  contravention  of  the  law  which  enjoined  that  the  paschal  lamb  and, 
&  fortiori,  Christ,  should  be  sacrificed  on  the  I4th  of  the  month,  and  by  the 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  237 

words  of  Apollinaris  :  "  They  (the  quartodecimans)  say 
that  on  the  I4th  the  Lord  ate  the  lamb  with  his  disciples," 
appear  to  set  forth  the  actual  question  in  dispute,  to  settle 
which  the  example  of  John  was  cited.  Unfavorable  are 
they,  as  well  as  those  of  Hippolytus  previously  quoted, 
to  the  theory  advocated  by  some  scholars  that  the  paschal 
controversy  had  regard  not  to  the  subject  of  the  festival, 
but  only  to  the  day ;  that  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  in 
carrying  out  an  originally  Jewish-Christian  practice  had 
attached  themselves  to  the  Jewish  law,  and  established 
an  analogous  festival  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  Jew- 
ish passover  fell ;  but  afterwards,  in  order  to  show  the 
propriety  of  connecting  with  this  Christian  festival  of 
salvation  the  commemoration  of  the  institution  of  the 
last  supper,  had  maintained  the  like  practice  of  Jesus 
according  to  the  synoptists.*  With  all  the  difficulties  of 
the  problem  it  appears  pretty  certain  that  at  the  time  of 
the  passover-controversy  there  was  no  question  of  a  cele- 
bration of  the  passover  in  general,  but  of  an  event  of  the 
Gospel-history  connected  with  it  ;  of  the  institution,  in 
fact,  of  the  Lord's  supper  at  the  last  passover-celebration 
by  Jesus.  But  if  the  festival  of  the  Christians  of  Asia 
Minor  concerned  this  institution  it  stands  in  insoluble 
contradiction  with  a  Gospel  which  cuts  off  its  roots,  since 
it  formally  excludes  a  last  passover-meal  of  Jesus  with 
his  disciples,  f 

acceptance  of  the  synoptic  account,  an  introduction  of  discord  between  the 
two  narratives.  Apollinaris  seems  to  imply  that  in  his  time  the  statement 
of  the  fourth  evangelist  regarding  the  last  supper  was  already  received  by 
certain  persons.  From  this  problem  of  the  variance  of  the  records,  Dr. 
Routh  shrinks  :  Difficillima  quaestio,  cui  me  virum  pusilli  ingenii  interponere 
noluerim.  Relig.  Sacra,  i.  p.  168.  Tayler,  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  108. 

*Lucke,  Gieseler,  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Riggenbach,  Hase,  SchUrer,  Luth- 
ardt,  Weiss,  Ezra  Abbot,  and  others. 

f  Holtzman,  Einleit.  ;  Baur,  Schwegler,  Zeller,  Keim,  Scholten,  Hilgen- 
feld,  Davidson,  Matthew  Arnold,  Martineau,  Tayler,  and  others,  to  whom 


238  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

The  echoes  of  this  discussion  have  long  since  died  away, 
and  it  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  importance  to  Christians 
whether  Jesus  was  crucified  on  one  or  another  day  of 
the  month.  The  sole  interest  in  the  question  is  now  a 
critical  one,  and  relates  to  the  authorship  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  Two  questions  must,  however,  be  kept  distinct  : 
Is  it  probable  that  the  apostle  John  wrote  a  Gospel, 
against  an  important  statement  in  which  he  stands  his- 
torically committed  ?  and  Is  the  position  of  those  critics 
tenable  who  hold  that  the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  whoever 
he  may  have  been,  composed  it  with  the  object  in  part  of 
exerting  an  influence  in  the  paschal  controversy  against 
the  identification  of  the  last  supper  with  the  Jewish  pass- 
over?  It  is  evident  that  the  affirmative  of  the  former 
question  does  not  at  all  necessitate  that  of  the  latter. 
The  purpose  of  the  writer,  however,  to  represent  Jesus  as 
the  true  paschal  lamb  cannot  be  doubted,  and  probably 
accounts  for  the  discrepancy.  * 

If  we  begin  the  search  for  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
with  a  study  of  the  intimations  as  to  his  personality  con- 
tained in  the  work  itself,  we  are  first  impressed  with  a 
vague  presence  which  rather  conceals  than  manifests 
itself.  In  the  body  of  the  Gospel  there  appears  three 
times  a  personage  otherwise  undefined  than  as  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  in  the  appendix  (chapter 
xxi.)  he  is  expressly  pointed  out  as  one  who  was  to  sur- 
vive the  second  coming  of  Christ.  But  it  is  nowhere 
intimated  that  this  disciple  was  John.  Of  the  Word 
(Logos)  that  became  flesh  the  evangelist  says :  "  We 
beheld  his  glory,  a  glory  as  of  an  only-begotten  of  a 

with  Hausrath  and  Pfleiderer  acknowledgments  are  due  for  suggestions  for 
this  chapter. 

*  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  etc.,  p.  233. 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  239 

father,"  *  thus  including  himself  among  those  who  had 
beheld  a  certain  supersensible  manifestation  "  full  of 
grace  and  truth,"  which  he  calls  a  "  glory."  The  nature 
of  this  seeing  is  indeterminate,  and  may  be  a  spiritual 
intuition  of  which  one  might  thus  speak  who  had  enjoyed 
an  experience  of  the  "  grace  and  truth  "  of  Jesus,  as  "  ye 
have  seen  the  Father,"  and  "  the  world  seeth  me  no  more, 
but  ye  see  me."  f  In  another  place  the  evangelist  refers 
to  a  witness  in  confirmation  of  a  statement :  "  And  he 
that  hath  seen  this  hath  borne  witness,  and  that  one 
knoweth  that  he  saith  what  is  true,  that  ye  also  may 
believe."  \  The  improbability  that  a  writer  should  refer 
to  himself  as  "  that  one  "  §  has  led  Ewald  to  conjecture 
that  John,  whom  he  supposes  to  have  been  the  author, 
employed  a  young  friend  as  amanuensis  who  inserted 
these  words  !  Certainly,  the  only  natural  explanation  of 
the  passage  is  that  the  author  refers  in  it  to  one  who  has 
already  borne  testimony  which  he  uses,  and  wishes  to 
assure  the  reader  to  be  trustworthy.  An  author  writing 
of  himself  could  neither  say  "  that  one  "  nor  "  hath  borne 
witness."  In  the  appendix  the  disciple  previously  men- 
tioned is  declared  to  be  the  one  that  "  hath  written  these 
things."  If  this  chapter  was  written  by  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  it  is  evident  that  he  was,  or  wished  to  pass  for,  the 
vague  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  whoever  he  may  have 
been.  But  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the  twentieth 
chapter  is  the  proper  and  natural  ending  of  the  Gospel, 
and  that  the  twenty-first  was  added  later.  The  author- 
ship of  the  chapter  is  too  uncertain  to  warrant  any 

*  Chap.  i.  14. 

\  The  same  word  for  "  see"  is  used  in  all  these  passages  and  in  chap.  i. 
51,  "Ye  shall  see  the  heaven  opened  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and 
descending  on  the  Son  of  Man." 

\  Chap.  xix.  35.  $  £K£lVO<a. 


240  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

conclusions  from  it  as  to  that  of  the  Gospel  itself.  Sus- 
picion is  thrown  upon  it  by  the  last  verse  which  has  a 
decidedly  apocryphal  character :  "  And  there  are  also 
many  other  things  which  Jesus  did  ;  and  if  they  were  to 
be  every  one  written,  I  suppose  that  not  even  the  world 
itself  could  contain  the  books  that  would  be  written." 
This  verse  is  textually  well  authenticated,  being  found  in 
all  the  oldest  manuscripts  except  the  Sinaitic.  Tischen- 
dorf's  rejection  of  it  is  quite  arbitrary.  Widely  different 
opinions  have  been  held  as  to  the  veiling  of  the  voucher 
for  the  narrative  in  these  passages  on  the  assumption  of 
John's  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  according  as  it  is  thought 
to  indicate  a  delicate  modesty,  or  especially  in  the  charac- 
terization of  the  disciple  as  one  whom  Jesus  loved,  an 
ambiguous  and  artificial  manner  of  introducing  him,*  if 
not  a  presumptuous  self-exaltation,  f  or  vanity,  \  or  a 
piece  of  offensive  self-glorification,  §  or  an  unendurably 
conceited  self-designation.  ||  These  difficulties  disappear, 
however,  with  the  rejection  of  an  immediate  Johannine 
authorship. 

Since,  from  the  critical  point  of  view,  the  Gospel  must 
be  regarded  as  the  product  of  a  human  personality,  the 
question  naturally  arises  whether  the  Galilean  fisherman, 
John,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  surnamed  "  the  son  of  thun- 
der," was  a  person  likely  to  produce  it.  From  the  synop- 
tics we  learn  that  he  was  of  an  ambitious,  fiery,  and 
vindictive  nature.  He  aspired  to  sit  beside  the  Son  of 
Man  in  his  glory,  and  would  call  down  fire  from  heaven 
on  the  inhospitable  Samaritan  village.  It  should  be  re- 
membered that  the  portrait  of  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
loved  is  painted  only  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  is  not 

*  Holtzmann.  f  Weisse.  \  Scholten. 

§  Keim.  |  Schmeidel. 


THE  GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  241 

there  intimated  to  be  that  of  John.  According  to  our 
knowledge  of  him  from  the  synoptics,  he  was  much  better 
qualified  to  write  the  fierce  and  fiery  Apocalypse  than  the 
love-breathing  Gospel.  Paul  represents  him  as  one  of  the 
"  pillar-apostles  "  who  maintained  the  legalistic  attitude 
of  the  original  apostles,  and  preached  the  Gospel  only  to 
those  of  the  circumcision,*  in  a  word,  as  "  the  natural 
continuation  of  the  disciple  of  the  synoptic  Gospels, 
called  among  the  first  to  be  a  follower  of  Jesus."  Now, 
the  fourth  Gospel  represents  a  phase  of  universalism 
which  even  surpasses  that  of  Paul,  as  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  a  phase  of  the  development  of  Christianity 
to  which  the  world  is  the  field,  to  which  a  universal 
spiritual  worship  is  preferable  to  rites  and  ceremonies  in 
Jerusalem  or  on  Gerizim.f  The  writer  of  this  great  work 
has  left  far  behind  him  all  national  limitations  and  the 
meagre  ingathering  through  Jewish  proselytism  ;  recog- 
nizes "  other  sheep  "  than  those  of  the  fold  of  Israel ; 
beholds  with  prophetic  eye  "  one  flock  and  one  shep- 
herd "  ;  represents  the  great  Martyr  as  dying  "  not  for 
the  nation  only,  but  that  he  may  also  gather  together  in 
one  body  the  children  of  God  that  are  scattered  abroad," 
and  introduces  Greeks  to  see  Jesus  in  the  solemn  hour  of 
preparation  for  the  sacrifice  which  was  to  "  bear  much 
fruit."  J  Here  one  sees  no  longer  traces  of  "  the  violent 
separation  of  the  new  faith  from  the  mother-religion  " ; 
there  are  no  echoes  of  the  pathetic  complaint  of  Jesus 
over  his  people  ;  §  the  voice  of  Paul  is  not  heard  in  sym- 
pathy for  his  "  brethren  according  to  the  flesh  "  ;  no  word 
of  promise  or  of  prophecy  for  the  reprobate  nation  is 
spoken,  but  rather  one  of  irrevocable  condemnation  ;  ||  the 

*  Gal.  ii.  7-12.  \  Chap.  x.  16,  xi.  52,  xii.  2O  f. 

f  Chap.  iii.  16,  17  ;  iv.  23,  24.       §  Luke  xix.  41-44. 

I  Chap.  xii.  38-40. 
16 


242  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

glowing  hope  of  Paul  for  the  conversion  of  "  all  Israel " 
finds  no  place  in  the  sombre  picture  depicted  in  the 
ominous  prophecy,  "  Ye  shall  die  in  your  sins."  * 

This  is  evidently  not  the  point  of  view  of  a  Jewish- 
Christian  writer  of  the  apostolic  age.  Not  to  charge  the 
author  with  a  wholesale  invention,  one  cannot  but  see 
that  he  has  given  the  biography  of  Jesus  such  a  setting, 
has  used  his  material  in  such  a  way,  as  to  indicate  un- 
mistakably the  time  of  the  waning  of  Judaism  and  the 
growing  supremacy  of  Pauline  ideas.  The  Judaism  which 
he  has  before  him  is  that  of  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century,  and  the  Christianity  which  he  represents  is  that 
of  the  same  period,  with  its  theological  ideas,  problems, 
disputations,  and  refinements  of  speculation.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  conceive  of  the  synoptists  representing 
Jesus  as  entering  into  a  discussion  with  the  Jews  on  the 
problem  how  he  could  be  one  with  God  and  represent  the 
Father  without  overthrowing  the  monotheistic  doctrine.f 
Such  speculations  were  as  remote  from  their  time  and 
foreign  to  their  thought  as  they  were  native  and  familiar 
to  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century.  It  is  also 
questionable  that  the  author's  point  of  view  indicates 
familiarity  with  the  Jews  of  the  time  of  Christ,  their 
country,  state,  and  institutions.  He  speaks  of  their  cus- 
toms in  such  terms  as  a  foreigner  would  employ — for 
example,  of  "  the  manner  of  purifying  of  the  Jews,"  "  the 
Jews'  passover  was  nigh,"  "  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is 
to  bury,"  etc.  This  style  is  peculiar  to  him  among  the 
evangelists.  The  judgment  of  Matthew  Arnold  appears 
just,  that  "it  seems  almost  impossible  to  think  that  a  Jew 
born  and  bred — a  man  like  the  apostle  John — could  ever 
have  come  to  speak  so."  "A  Jew  talking  of  the  Jews' 

*  Chap.  viii.  24.  \  Chap.  x.  30-37. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  243 

passover  *  *  *  is  like  an  Englishman  writing  of  the 
Derby  as  the  English  people's  Derby."  As  to  "  Bethany 
beyond  Jordan,"  *  it  is  well  known  that  Origen's  personal 
investigation  on  the  spot  failed  to  find  such  a  place,  and 
that,  finding  a  Bethabara  there,  his  influence  prevailed  in 
establishing  that  reading  temporarily.  The  oldest  and 
best  manuscripts,  however,  read  Bethany. f  It  is  only  the 
exigencies  of  a  theory  that  can  lead  scholars  to  conclude 
that  there  must  have  been  such  a  place,  though  it  has  never 
been  found. f  A  geographical  error  of  this  kind  could 
not  have  been  committed  by  an  apostle  of  Jesus.  Again, 
a  writer  familiar  with  Jewish  institutions  v/ould  not  write 
of  Caiaphas  as  "  High-priest  of  that  year,"  as  if  the  office 
were  a  yearly  one.  It  is  likely  that,  writing  in  Asia  Minor, 
the  custom  prevailing  there  was  before  his  mind.§ 

Objections  against  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the 
Gospel  have  been  urged  with  great  cogency,  on  the 
ground  of  the  theological  point  of  view  of  the  author  and 
of  his  manner  of  dealing  with  the  philosophical  problems 
which  he  introduces.  While  his  limited  vocabulary  shows 
the  narrowness  of  his  range  of  thought,  this  range  of 

*Chap.  i.  28. 

f  Davidson's  remark  is  at  least  obscure:  *'We  assume  that  Bethany, 
not  Bethabara,  is  the  true  reading,  as  Origen  attests  ;  with  the  approval  of 
Lachmann  and  Tischendorf  "  !  Introduction,  ii.  p.  427. 

\  Meyer  and  De  Wette.  Matthew  Arnold's  judgment  is  that  the  author's 
4 '  Palestinian  geography  is  so  vague  *  *  *  that  when  he  wants  a  name 
for  a  locality  he  takes  the  first  village  that  comes  into  his  remembrance, 
without  troubling  himself  to  think  whether  it  suits  or  no,"  and  that,  know- 
ing the  Bethany  where  Lazarus  lived,  he  hastily  took  it  as  the  place  where 
John  baptized  !  To  Baur  this  Bethany  is  a  pure  invention,  made  in  order 
to  have  Jesus'  work  begin  and  end  at  Bethany  !  Such  are  some  of  the 
vagaries  and  follies  of  criticism. 

§  "  The  High-priest  of  the  new  temple  in  the  province  appointed  from 
year  to  year."  Mommsen.  Holtzmann. 


244  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

thought  betrays  itself  as  anything  but  that  of  primitive 
Christianity,  and  rather  indicates  a  contact  with  Gnostic 
ideas.  It  has  been  suggested  that  perhaps  that  which, 
for  Gnosticism,  was  separated  into  a  plurality  of  ^Eons,  is, 
in  the  Johannine  Logos-doctrine,  combined  in  the  form 
"  the  only  begotten  of  a  father,"  in  whom  dwelt  all  the 
of  fulness  of  the  Godhead.  *  Some  of  the  author's  philo- 
sophical principles  are  far  too  much  like  the  dualistic 
speculations  of  the  Gnosis  to  be  classed  with  primitive- 
Christian  conceptions  without  a  manifest  anachronism. 
Such  are  the  ideas  of  a  fundamental  opposition  between 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  that  of  the  world,f  between  God 
and  the  Devil,  light  and  darkness,  truth  and  falsehood, 
and  that  of  the  helpless  spiritual  condition  of  those  who 
are  of  the  "  world."  \  Not  only  does  the  Time-spirit  thus 
cast  a  "  dualistic  shadow  upon  the  Gospel,"  but  its  termi- 
nology of  the  school  is  more  prominent  than  the  language 
of  the  unsophisticated  religious  consciousness.  The 
mysticism,  also,  which  is  a  unique  feature  of  the  Gospel, 
is  very  questionably  of  Jewish  or  early-Christian  origin. § 
In  its  doctrine  of  salvation  the  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the 
incarnation  of  the  Logos,  ||  a  speculative  doctrine  wholly 
foreign  to  the  original  conception  of  soteriology.  The 
sensuous,  external  conception  of  the  judgment,  which  is 
expressed  with  great  fulness  in  the  earlier  Gospels,  finds 
incidental  expression,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  evident  that  the 
author's  idea  of  the  world-judgment  is  that  of  an  inward 
separation  by  recognition  or  rejection  of  the  Logos,  or  a 

*  Chap.  i.  14,  cf.  I  Tim.  i.  4,  Col.  ii.  9. 
f  Chap.  viii.  23,  xv.  19,  xvii.  14,  16. 

j  Chap.  viii.  44-47,  i.  4,  v.   10,  iii.  19-21,  xii.  35,  viii.  43,  44,  47,  x.  26, 
xii.  37-40. 

§  Chap.  xiv.  17,  xvii.  9,  xiv.  23,  xv.  4-7,  xvii.  23. 

|  Chap.  v.  28,  29,  xi.  50-52,  xvii.  19,  i.  9-13,  viii.  12,  xvii.  4-8. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  245 

judgment  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word.*  The 
original  notion  of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  trans- 
formed into  that  of  an  inward,  eternal  life,  beginning 
upon  the  earth,  and  never  to  be  extinguished. f  The 
visible  return  of  Christ  from  heaven,  the  great  and  in- 
extinguishable hope  of  the  early  Christians,  which  is 
perhaps  once  intimated  in  the  body  of  the  Gospel,  and  is 
clearly  expressed  only  in  the  spurious  appendix,  is  changed 
into  an  enduring  spiritual  fellowship,  and  even  into  the 
dissemination  of  his  spirit  among  men.  J  Not  less  char- 
acteristic is  the  gentle  but  unmistakable  setting  aside  of 
the  belief  which  is  supported  by  miracles  and  of  external 
institutions  in  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.§  In  all 
this  there  has  been  generally  recognized  the  latest  and 
ripest  development  of  theology  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  it  is  a  form  of  it 
which  deviates  most  widely  from  the  original,  and  that  it 
cannot  be  accounted  for  apart  from  the  speculations  of 
the  second  century.  An  evolution  it  is,  indeed,  but  not 
an  evolution  which  could  take  place  in  the  inward  expe- 
rience of  an  apostle  of  Jesus.  It  has,  accordingly,  been 
well  observed  that  one  must  make  the  disciple  greater 
than  the  Master,  and  ascribe  to  him  a  growth  surpassing 
the  possibilities  of  individual  human  development,  if  one 
will  suppose  such  ideas  to  have  been  ripened  in  the  mind 
of  the  aged  man  who,  in  his  best  years,  stood  beside 
James  and  Peter  as  one  of  the  "  pillar-apostles  "  of  the 
Jewish-Christian  Church. 

*Chap.  v.  28,  29,  xii.  48,  iii.  18-21,  v.  24,  xv.  22-24. 

fChap.  vii.  39,  40,  44,  54,  xi.  24,  viii.  5.1,  xi.  25,  26. 

\  Chap.  xiv.  3,  xxi.  22,  23,  xiv.  18-23,  xyi-  J6-23,  xiv.  16-18,  xv.  26, 
xvi.  7,  13-15. 

§Chap.  ii.  23-25,  iv.  39,  42,  45,  48,  x.  38,  xx.  29,  iii.  3-8,  vi.  63.  The 
institution  of  the  Lord's  supper  is  not  mentioned.  Holtzmann  Einleit.; 
Hausrath,  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgcr.ch. 


246  GOSPEI^CRITICISM. 

That  out  of  the  circle  of  the  original  apostles  could  pro- 
ceed two  such  radically  different  and  even  contradictory 
representations  of  the  person  and  nature  of  Jesus  as  that 
of  Matthew's  logia  and  the  preaching  of  Peter,  or  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  which  are  the  basis  of  the  synoptic 
records,  and  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  is  quite  incredible. 
The  Christology  of  the  latter  is  a  complete  transformation 
of  that  of  the  former.  The  descendant  of  David,  the  son 
of  a  carpenter,  a  young  man  belonging  to  a  family  of  the 
people,  his  brothers  named  and  his  sisters  known,  who 
uses  the  common  speech  of  the  lowly,  and  draws  lessons 
from  the  lilies  and  the  birds,  according  to  the  synoptists, 
becomes  in  this  record  the  incarnation  of  a  pre-existent 
essence,  the  Philonic  Logos  become  Messiah,  the  divine 
being,  heaven-descended,  without  whom  nothing  was 
made,  who  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  was  God. 
His  entire  discourse  and  conduct  are  represented  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  conception  of  him.  He  speaks  of  a 
glory  which  he  had  with  God  "  before  the  world  was."  * 
What  he  declares  is  that  which  he  has  seen,  which  the 
Father  has  told  him,  'has  commanded  him.  His  divine 
existence  is  an  eternal  present ;  "  before  Abraham  was,  I 
am" f  he  says.  Not  only  are  the  secrets  of  heaven  an 
open  book  to  him,  but  the  secrets  of  the  human  heart 
also.  He  needs  not  that  men  should  tell  him  anything, 
for  he  knows  what  is  in  man,J  recognizes  Simon  as  the 
"  rock  "  §  at  a  glance,  without  testing  him  as  did  the  Jesus 
of  the  synoptists  ;  miraculously  sees  Nathaniel  at  a  dis- 
tance under  the  fig-tree ;  ||  knows  preternaturally  the 
previous  life  of  the  Samaritan  woman  ;  If  foreknows  his 
betrayer,  the  death  of  Lazarus,  and  the  time  of  his  own 

*Chap.  xvii.  5.  f  Chap.  viii.  58.  \  Chap.  ii.  25. 

§  Chap.  i.  42.  8  Chap.  i.  49.  ^[Chap.  iv.  16. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  247 

death.*  He  knows  no  limitations,  works  miracles  as  with 
omnipotent  power,  heals  a  man  at  the  distance  of  a  day's 
journey,  turns  water  into  wine,  and  by  a  word  calls  a  dead 
man  already  putrescent  from  the  grave.  He  has  but  to 
command,  and  it  comes  to  pass,  for  the  Father  has 
put  all  things  into  his  hands.  No  traces  of  human 
growth,  wrestling,  and  struggle  mar  this  wonderful  por- 
trait of  a  divine  one  incarnate.  The  great  Logos  has  no 
part  in  the  baptism  of  John,  no  awful  days  and  nights  of 
conflict  with  temptation  in  the  wilderness.  Satan  does 
not  venture  to  approach  him.  The  final  tragedy  is  only 
a  means  by  which  the  heaven-descended  one  may  return 
to  the  world  above,  and  he  has  no  need  to  falter  and 
writhe  and  watch.  "  Shall  I  say,"  he  cries,  "  Father,  save 
me  from  this  hour?"  If  his  soul  is  for  a  moment 
"  troubled,"  there  is  no  protracted  struggle,  no  bloody 
sweat,  and  no  need  of  an  angel  to  strengthen  him.  On 
the  cross  he  speaks  no  words  of  heart-broken  despair, 
but,  with  godlike  majesty,  proclaims,  "  It  is  finished  !  " 
Finally  the  master-hand  that  has  drawn  this  great  picture 
sweeps  from  the  heavens  the  apocalyptic  paraphernalia  of 
the  synoptic  second  coming,  as  a  Jewish  conception,  or 
rather  a  dream,  unfitted  to  a  world-religion  and  incon- 
gruous with  a  later  philosophy. 

It  does  not,  however,  by  any  means  follow  from  the 
foregoing  considerations  that  this  Gospel  is  for  the  most 
part  a  work  of  pure  invention,  a  fancy-piece,  written  to 
serve  the  exigencies  of  a  theological  system,  and  devised 
with  consummate  art  to  bring  to  the  support  of  that  sys- 
tem the  assumed  teachings  of  Jesus.  Granting  that  the 
internal  evidences  are  decidedly  unfavorable  to  the  Johan- 
nine  authorship,  we  are  by  no  means  under  the  necessity 

*Chap.  vi.  64,  xi.  1—13,  xii.  23,  xiii.  I. 


248  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

of  adopting  this  "  rigorous  "  theory.  As  to  the  authors 
being  "  a  consummate  artist/'  Matthew  Arnold  has  shown 
by  a  process  of  fine  literary  criticism  that  it  is  no  true  art 
which  he  employs,  because  "  it  does  not  manage  to  conceal 
itself."  The  unlikeness  of  his  Jesus  to  the  Jesus  of  the 
synoptists  is  "  too  glaring."  "  The  redaction  and  compo- 
sition of  this  Gospel  show  literary  skill,  and  indicate  a 
trained  Greek  as  their  author,  not  a  fisherman  of  Galilee. 
But  it  may  be  said  with  certainty  that  a  literary  artist 
capable  of  inventing  the  most  striking  sayings  of  Jesus  to 
Nicodemus  or  to  the  woman  of  Samaria  would  have  made 
his  composition  as  a  whole  more  flawless,  more  artistically 
perfect  than  the  fourth  Gospel  actually  is.  Judged  from 
an  artist's  point  of  view  it  has  blots  and  awkwardnesses 
which  a  master  of  imaginative  invention  would  never  have 
suffered  his  work  to  exhibit."  *  The  Gospel,  then,  remains 
to  be  accounted  for,  and  any  theory  of  its  origin  must 
reckon  with  the  fact  of  its  unmistakable  spiritual  charac- 
ter, which  we  have  seen  was  recognized  by  the  ancients, 
and  must  offer  an  explanation  of  the  great  sayings  attrib- 
uted to  Jesus  in  it  and  of  the  qualities  unique  and  beau- 
tiful which  made  it  appear  to  Luther  and  even  to  Baur 
"  the  only,  tender,  true  chief-Gospel."  The  theory  of  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel  which  will  stand  the  test  of 
criticism  must  also  take  account  of  the  tradition  which 
connects  its  origin  with  John.  While  tradition  is  not 
blindly  to  be  received,  it  does,  as  we  have  seen,  count  for 
something,  and  should  not  be  arbitrarily  set  aside.  An 
acceptable  hypothesis  cannot  disregard  the  fact  that  the 
Gospel  was  received  without  dispute  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century  as  a  Johannine  account  of  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus,  and  took  its  place  in  the  canon  early 

*  God  and  the  Bible,  p.  247. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  249 

in  the  third  century  along  with  the  other  Gospels.  No 
theory  of  the  Gospel  can,  however,  be  expected  to  stand 
which  does  not  have  a  strong  support  in  the  record  itself, 
which  is  not,  in  a  word,  sustained  by  the  internal  evidences. 
Now,  that  there  are  internal  indications  of  the  composite 
character  of  the  Gospel  can  hardly  be  denied  by  a  careful 
and  unbiassed  reader  of  it.  It  is  a  work  of  striking  incon- 
gruities. .  Whoever  reads  it  attentively  finds  himself  now 
charmed  and  stirred  by  passages  of  great  beauty  and 
spiritual  profoundness,  now  shocked  and  perplexed  by 
enigmatical  words  and  by  sayings  hard  to  reconcile  with 
a  conception  of  the  unity  and  consistency  of  the  whole. 
The  problem  which  these  internal  phenomena  present  has 
received  various  solutions,  according  to  the  point  of  view 
of  different  investigators.  Schweitzer  *  regarded  the  ac- 
counts of  the  Galilean  ministry  of  Jesus  as  later  interpo- 
lations. Tobler,f  Ewald,  \  Hase,  §  and  Weizsacker  |  have 
attempted  to  explain  the  mingling  of  authentic  or  apostoli- 
cal with  spurious  or  unapostolical  elements  in  the  Gospel 
by  the  hypothesis  that  an  evangelic  oral  tradition  of  the 
apostle  John,  which  had  come  down  without  definite 
form,  was  recorded  in  it  with  many  modifications  by  one 
of  his  disciples.  On  the  other  hand,  Weisse^f  maintains 
that  the  basis  of  the  Gospel  was  a  writing  by  John  con- 
taining certain  discourses  of  Jesus  which  received  a  his- 
torical revision  by  a  later  hand.  Weisse's  hypothesis  has 
recently  been  assumed  in  its  general  features  by  Wendt,** 

*  Das  Evangelium  Johannes  nach  seinem  inneren  Werth  und  seiner  Be- 
deutung,  etc.,  1841. 

f  Die  Evangelienf rage,  etc.,  1858. 

\  Die  Johanneischen  Schriften,  1861. 

§  Geschichte  Jesu,  1876.  f  Untersuchungen,  etc.,  1864. 

^[  Die  Evangel.  Gesch.,  1838  ;  Die  Evangelienfrage,  1856. 

**  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  i.  1886. 


250  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

and  defended  with  much  acumen  and  in  critical  detail. 
According  to  this  view,  the  fourth  evangelist  held  a  rela- 
tion similar  in  general  to  that  of  the  first  evangelist  to  the 
logia  of  Matthew,  and  the  marked  difference  of  the  former 
from  the  latter  work  is  due  in  part  to  the  character  of  the 
logia  of  Jesus  preserved  by  John  and  in  part  to  the  point 
of  view  of  the  writer  who  gave  them  a  historical  setting. 
It  is  maintained  that  one  can  hardly  find  the  differences 
difficult  to  explain  when  one  takes  into  account  a  half- 
century's  development  of  Christianity,  the  Alexandrian 
philosophy,  the  influence  of  Pauline  ideas,  and  the  point 
of  view  of  a  Greek-Christian  writer  in  Asia  Minor. 

But  all  the  critical  acumen  which  has  been  applied  to 
the  development  of  the  Weisse-Wendt  hypothesis  does 
not  succeed  in  freeing  it  from  grave  difficulties  and  an 
appearance  of  arbitrariness.  The  literary  unity  of  the 
Gospel  is  so  generally  admitted  by  critics  of  opposing 
schools  that  it  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  contested 
question.  Now,  the  joining  of  a  logia-document  of  any 
considerable  extent  written  by  a  Jewish-Christian  apostle 
to  the  composition  of  such  a  writer  as  the  fourth  evange- 
list must  have  been,  so  as  to  produce  a  work  like  the 
fourth  Gospel,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  is  per- 
haps a  literary  impossibility.  Wendt,  it  is  true,  does  not 
oppose  the  unity  'of  the  Gospel  in  the  sense  of  contesting 
its  unitary  redaction  in  its  present  form  ;  but  he  cannot  be 
said  to  have  overcome  the  difficulty  which  is  presented  in 
the  supposition  that  a  writer  of  the  Johannine  school 
should  have  taken  such  liberties  with  an  apostolic  logia- 
document  as  to  give  it  the  impress  of  his  own  individuality 
and  the  coloring  of  his  theological  opinions  to  the  extent 
of  making  it  unrecognizable  as  apostolic.  Besides,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  it  is  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus  as  set 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  2$ I 

forth  in  this  Gospel  that  some  of  the  principal  objections 
to  its  Johannine  authorship  appear,  and  the  difficulties  are 
not  overcome  by  the  arbitrary  elimination  which  Wendt 
makes  of  certain  objectionable  portions  of  them.  Such 
a  piece-work  as  this  theory  would  make  it,  the  Gospel 
certainly  does  not  appear  to  be.  Neither  is  any  consid- 
erable participation  of  the  apostle  John  in  its  composition 
made  to  appear  probable  by  the  quite  gratuitous  assump- 
tion of  a  radical  change  of  his  opinions  and  shifting  of 
his  point  of  view  in  later  life  under  the  influence  of  gen- 
tile-Christian and  Pauline  ideas  in  Ephesus.  That  in  this 
environment  he  should  gradually  have  "  put  off  many 
remnants  of  Jewish-Christian  limitations,"  that  "  the  por- 
trait of  his  Master  should  have  been  transfigured  in  him," 
"  removed  from  the  human  sphere,  and  surrounded  with 
a  divine  splendor,"  *  is  anything  but  "  probable."  A 
companion  of  Jesus  in  youth  and  "  pillar  -apostle  "  in 
middle  life  could  scarcely  be  transformed  into  an  Alexan- 
drian philosopher  and  Pauline  universalist  by  any  magic 
likely  to  have  been  operative  in  the  Ephesian  envi- 
ronment. 

That  the  problem  of  the  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel is  one  to  be  solved  off-hand  by  radical  criticism,  or  to 
be  pronounced  upon  ex  cathedra  by  conservative  dogma- 
tism, no  sound  critic  will  maintain  in  view  of  a  century's 
discussion  of  it.  A  criticism  which  has  a  savor  of  spiritual 
discernment  will  not  cast  this  remarkable  work  aside  as  an 
invention  of  second-century  Gnosticism,  containing  only 
"  the  arid  mysticism  of  the  schools  of  Alexandria."  If  the 
external  evidences  are  indecisive  of  its  early  origin  ;  if 
from  internal  grounds  we  cannot  regard  it  as  the  work  cf 
an  apostle ;  if  it  plainly  has  a  composite  character,  then 

*  Schenkel,  Das  Charakterbild  Jesu.  1864. 


252  GOSPEL-  CRI  TIC  ISM. 

the  unbiassed  critic  may  still  be  just  to  the  ancient  tradi- 
tion of  the  Ephesian  church  and  to  the  profound  spiritual 
sayings  of  the  Gospel  in  holding  that,  while  on  any  hy- 
pothesis of  its  origin  many  critical  problems  remain 
unsolved,  there  is  at  least  a  strong  probability  for  a 
Johannine  nucleus  in  the  book,  for  frequent  "  words  of  the 
Lord  "  (Xoyia  Kvpiaxa)  handed  down  from  the  apostle 
without  connection,  probably,  and  without  a  historical 
setting,  which  have  in  this  remarkable  work  found  a  liter- 
ary embodiment  in  the  midst  of  much  mysticism,  it  is 
true,  and  overlaid  by  Greek-Christian,  second-century 
speculations,  but  distinguishable  from  these  by  their 
unique  quality  and  surprising  originality.  The  attentive 
reader  finds  on  almost  every  page  of  the  Gospel  words 
which  are  probably  genuine  Johannine  logia  of  Jesus. 
They  have  been  now  skilfully,  now  awkwardly,  connected 
with  the  narratives,  and  embodied  in  the  discourses,  and 
are  recognizable  by  their  profound  spirituality  and  by 
that  gnomic  character  which  is  stamped  upon  the  synoptic 
tradition  of  Jesus.  A  prudent  criticism  will  perhaps 
refrain  from  the  somewhat  hazardous  attempt  to  distin- 
guish these  logia  in  detail  from  the  rest  of  the  record,  as 
well  as  from  venturing  conjectures  as  to  the  form  or  way 
in  which  they  may  have  come  to  the  writer.  Inventions 
these  quickening  words  surely  cannot  be,  unless  the  Jesus 
of  the  synoptists,  who  taught  "  as  one  having  authority," 
was  also  an  invention  of  Galilean  fishermen.  If  these 
logia  descended  from  the  Ephesian  apostle,  and  so  much 
at  least  ought  to  be  accorded  to  the  tradition,  then  the 
Gospel  which  contains  them  may  well  be  entitled  that 
"  according  to  John." 

Since  Baur  placed  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the 
Gospel  at  about  the  year  170,  the  tendency  of  representa- 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.  253 

tives  of  the  critical  school  has  been  towards  the  assump- 
tion of  an  earlier  period,  the  variations  extending  through 
about  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The  precise  date  is  mani- 
festly indeterminable,  but  the  opinion  which  assigns  it  to 
the  second  quarter  of  the  second  century  is  probably 
correct.  Idle  are  all  speculations  as  to  its  author.  Worse 
than  idle  is  the  charge  that  he  intended  to  forge  a  Gospel 
in  the  name  of  an  apostle.  That  he  wrote  with  sincerity 
is  as  evident  as  that  he  wrote  with  a  purpose.  His  rela- 
tion to  John  is  somewhat  analogous  to  that  of  the  first 
evangelist  to  Matthew,  though  he  doubtless  handled  his 
materials  with  much  greater  freedom  than  the  latter. 
Like  the  author  of  the  second  Isaiah,  he  remains,  and  will 
forever  remain,  a  great  Unknown.  This  incomparable 
Gospel  is  a  monument  to  a  great  genius,  and  we  may  well 
believe  that  no  one  would  be  more  ready  than  he  to 
acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  his  greater  Master. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  ESCHATOLOGY   OF   THE   GOSPELS. 

THE  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus  regarding  "the  last 
things,"  and  particularly  regarding  his  own  partici- 
pation in  certain  events  which  were  believed  to  be  the 
final  scenes  of  the  Messianic  drama  of  the  then  "  present 
age,"  present  some  of  the  gravest  problems  with  which 
the  criticism  of  the  Gospels  has  to  deal.  That  Jesus 
should  have  had  so  much  faith  in  the  vitality  and  the 
transforming  power  of  his  doctrine  as  to  look  forward 
with  unshaken  confidence  to  its  gradual  but  certain  tri- 
umph ;  that  he  should  have  believed  his  word  destined  to 
judge  men  by  separating  between  good  and  evil,  light 
and  darkness;  and  that  by  a  bold  figure  of  speech  he 
should  have  connected  himself  with  this  triumph  and 
judgment,  are  natural  inferences  from  his  personality  and 
history.  Little  doubt,  indeed,  can  exist  that  he  did  more 
than  once  speak  prophetic  words  of  such  spiritual  import. 
These  words  present  no  serious  difficulties  to  interpreters 
of  insight  and  literary  sense.  The  real  difficulty  in  the 
eschatological  sayings  ascribed  to  him  begins,  as  Schenkel 
has  pointed  out,*  with  the  passages  in  which  Jesus  an- 
nounces his  personal  return  to  the  earth,  and  this  in 
immediate  connection  with  the  judgment  on  Jerusalem. 
All  attempts  in  an  apologetic  interest  to  deny  that  the 
synoptists  wrote  of  such  a  coming  of  Christ  in  such  a 

*  Das  Charakterbild  Jesu,  p.  280. 
254 


THE   ESCHATOLOGY   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  2$ $ 

connection  are  not  in  accordance  with  a  sound  hermen- 
eutics,  and  do  not  deserve  refutation.  The  real  problem 
to  be  solved,  then,  it  is  not  difficult  to  state.  For  most 
modern  interpreters  of  note  agree  that  in  the  synoptic 
eschatological  discourses  the  Parousia  is  represented  as  a 
personal  visible  reappearance  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  the 
life-time  of  the  generation  then  living  for  the  establish- 
ment of  his  kingdom  and  for  judgment,  and  also  that  this 
return  is  often,  particularly  in  the  great  discourse  con- 
cerning the  last  things  in  the  thirteenth  of  Mark  and  its 
parallels,  connected  with  the  abomination  of  desolation 
and  the  judgment  on  Jerusalem.*  The  chief  divergence 
of  opinion  arises  on  the  question  whether  the  notion  of  a 
return  in  the  form  in  which  it  lies  before  us  is  to  be  put 
to  the  account  of  Jesus,  with  the  error  and  self-deception 
involved,  or  to  that  of  his  disciples  who  may  have  mis- 
understood him  and  to  that  of  the  evangelists  who  re- 
corded the  misunderstanding. 

The  only  explanations  of  the  passages  in  question  worth 
seeking  or  considering  are  such  as  proceed  from  a  histori- 
cal and  critical  study  of  the  Jewish-Messianic  beliefs  and 
expectations  and  of  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  these.  The 
purely  exegetical  process  which  is  usually  unfruitful  must 
be  especially  so  in  this  case.  Only  when  the  Gospels  are 
studied  as  products  of  the  Jewish  race  in  a  particular 
phase  of  its  historical  development  can  many  of  the  prob- 
lems which  they  present  be  rightly  solved.  The  true 
criticism  is  historical  criticism.  Not  until  Jesus  is  appre- 
hended in  his  relation  to  the  ideas  and  history  of  his 
nation  can  his  life  be  truly  written.  For  the  solution, 
then,  of  the  problem  before  us  we  must  go  back  to  the 

*  So  Bleek,  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Baur,  Holtzmann,  Schenkel,  Weisse, 
Wendt,  Hase,  Weizsacker,  Keim,  Pfleiderer,  and  many  others. 


256  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

original  Jewish-Messianic  expectations,  and  follow  them 
down  to  the  time  of  Christ.  In  the  next  place  must  be 
considered  the  relation  which  Jesus  regarded  himself  as 
sustaining  to  Jewish  Messianism.  Finally  we  must  study 
in  the  light  which  we  may  hope  to  get  from  these  investi- 
gations the  principal  Messianic  or  eschatological  sayings 
which  are  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Gospels. 

Out  of  the  books  of  Hebrew  prophecy  speak  no  waver- 
ing, uncertain  voices.  The  Hebrew,  being  an  intense 
believer  in  the  providential  mission  of  his  nation,  never 
lost  his  faith  in  the  future  triumph  of  Jahveh's  chosen 
people  and  their  cause.  In  the  predictions  of  the  prophets 
this  faith  finds  glowing  expression.  It  is  enfeebled  by  no 
disaster,  it  is  quenched  by  no  adversity.  The  Hebrew 
warriors  shall  ultimately  triumph  over  the  enemies  of  the 
nation  on  whom  the  Most  High  will  pronounce  judg- 
ment. The  oldest  of  these  prophets  whose  visions  have 
been  preserved,  Joel,  towards  the  middle  of  the  ninth 
century  B.C.,  depicts  in  fine  poetry  the  great  day  of 
Jahveh,  which  shall  be  announced  by  dreams  of  old  men 
and  visions  of  young  men,  by  "  wonders  in  the  heavens 
and  in  the  earth,  blood  and  fire  and  pillars  of  smoke." 
"The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  darkness  and  the  moon 
into  blood."  All  nations  shall  be  gathered  in  the  valley 
of  Jehoshaphat  for  the  judgment  of  Jahveh  on  account 
of  His  people,  whose  scattered  captives  shall  be  brought 
back,  while  they  who  took  them  away  shall  be  sold  into 
slavery.  Jahveh  shall  roar  out  of  Zion,  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  shall  shake,  Egypt  shall  become  a  desolation,  and 
Edom  a  wilderness  for  their  violence  towards  Judah,  but 
"  Judah  shall  dwell  forever."  *  Micah,  after  announcing 
the  fearful  judgments  which  shall  fall  upon  the  chosen 

*  Joel,  chap.  ii.  iii. 


THE   ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS. 

people  for  their  sins,  Zion  plowed  as  a  field  and  Jerusa- 
lem become  heaps,  proclaims  that  "  in  the'last  days  "  the 
mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established,  and 
"  many  nations "  shall  come  up  to  it,  and  shall  learn  of 
the  ways  of  the  God  of  Jacob  who  shall  judge  among 
many  peoples,  and  shall  rebuke  strong  nations  afar  off 
amidst  universal  peace,  the  beating  of  swords  into  plough- 
shares and  spears  into  pruning-hooks.*  The  prophets 
exhaust  the  resources  of  imagination  in  painting  the 
splendors  of  "  the  age  to  come,"  the  blessed,  Messianic 
time.  Tears  and  weeping  shall  be  no  more.  There  shall 
be  no  old  man  who  does  not  fill  out  his  days,  and  the 
child  shall  die  a  hundred  years  old.  f  Nature  shall  be 
renewed,  and  rejoice  in  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.  J 
The  house  of  Jacob  shall  be  restored,  the  captives  brought 
home,  the  ten  tribes  reconciled  to  Jerusalem  to  form  one 
people  and  one  realm  §  in  which  "  the  iniquity  of  Israel 
shall  be  sought  for,  and  there  shall  be  none."  ||  The 
foreign  peoples  who  have  oppressed  the  holy  nation  shall 
be  terribly  chastised,  while  the  Jews  shall  found  a  vast 
empire,  and  the  vanquished  shall  pay  them  tribute. 

The  Hebrew  prophets  did  not,  however,  stop  with  the 
delineation  of  an  indefinite,  kingless  future.  The  golden 
age  of  the  reign  of  David,  the  great  conqueror,  the  com- 
peller  of  peace,  the  ideal  prophet-king,  furnishes  the  key- 
note of  many  prophecies.  This  great  theocratic  prince, 
this  Charlemagne  of  Israel,  this  man  after  God's  own 
heart,  was  never  to  be  without  a  descendant  on  the 
throne  of  his  people.  The  idea  of  a  personal  Messiah  of 
the  Davidic  line,  who  should  restore  the  ancient  glory 

*  Micah,  chap.  in.  iv.  -j-  Is.  Ixv.  20. 

t  Ib.  17.  §  Zech.  x.  6-r  i.  Is.  xi.  13. 

J  Is.  1.  19,  20. 
17 


258  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

of  his  race,  does  not,  however,  appear  in  full  vigor  until 
towards  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  before  Christ, 
when  Samaria  was  already  ruined,  and  the  decadence  of 
Jerusalem  had  begun.  Isaiah  and  Micah,  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  (about  720-600  B.C.),  are  the  principal  prophets 
who  associate  the  Son  of  David  with  their  hopes  of  the 
future.*  These  have  been  called  "  the  royalist-prophets," 
while  of  their  successors,  who  lived  during  or  after  the 
Babylonian  exile,  the  unknown  author  of  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi. 
and  Malachi  do  not  speak  of  a  descendant  of  David  nor 
of  any  visible  chief  of  the  theocracy  which  was  to  be 
restored.  Sometimes  David  appears  to  stand  for  the 
dynasty  in  general,  as,  "  I  will  be  your  God,  and  David 
shall  be  your  king  forever."  Again,  a  single  king  only 
seems  to  be  in  view,  a  descendant  of  David,  as  when 
Zechariah  designates  the  Messiah  as  a  Branch  who  shall 
build  the  temple  and  sit  upon  the  throne.f  From  Beth- 
lehem shall  this  king  come  forth,  under  whose  sway  "  the 
remnant  of  his  brethren  shall  return  unto  the'children  of 
Israel."  He  shall  also  be  "  great  unto  the  ends  of  the 
earth,"  and  shall  deliver  the  people  "  from  the  Assyrian 
when  he  cometh  into  our  land."  But  the  future  of  all  the 
visions  of  the  prophets  is  near  at  hand.  In  "  a  very  little 
while  "  shall  the  Branch  of  Jesse  appear,  who  shall  over- 
throw the  enemies  of  Judah  and  bring  the  exiles  from 
Assyria  and  Egypt.;);  The  descendant  of  David  who  was 
to  appear  from  Bethlehem  should  be  "  peace  "  when  the 
Assyrian  should  come  into  the  land,  and,  turning  against 
these  enemies,  should  make  Israel  as  a  lion,  and  rebuild 
the  temple.  The  writer  of  the  second  Isaiah  is  occupied 
with  an  early  restoration  from  the  Babylonian  exile,  and 

*  Micah  v.  1-4  ;  Is.  ix.  5,  6,  xi.  1-5  ;  Jer.  xxx.  5,  6,  15-17  ;  Ezek.  xxiv. 
23,  24,  xxxvii.  24,  25. 

f  Zech.  iii.  8,  vi.  12.  \  Is.  xi.  1-5,  11-13. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS. 

sees  the  hope  of  the  future  in  the  theocratic  and  pious 
remnant  of  the  people  which  had  been  "  bruised  for  the 
transgressions  of  many."  A  peculiar  trait  appears  in 
Malachi,  who  announces  that,  before  the  great  and  ter- 
rible day  of  the  Lord,  Elijah,  who  had,  according  to  an 
early  tradition,  been  translated,  should  be  sent  to  "  turn 
the  hearts  of  the  children  to  their  fathers,"  lest  the  earth 
be  smitten  in  the  divine  wrath  "  with  a  curse."  This 
prophet  is  not  announced  here  as  a  forerunner  of  Mes- 
siah, of  whom  Malachi  does  not  speak,  but  of  Jahveh, 
who  is  to  come  for  the  great  judgment  upon  the  idolatrous 
nations  and  upon  Israel.  This  strange  fancy  has  been 
characterized  as  "  the  first  fantastic  element  which  is 
joined  to  hopes  hitherto  so  simple  and  natural."^* 

The  presence  of  "  fantastic  elements  "  characterizes  the 
Jewish  apocalyptic  literature  of  a  later  period.  The  point 
of  view  of  the  Maccabean  age  is  represented  in  the  book 
of  Daniel,  written  probably  about  167  B.C.,  to  encourage 
the  Jews  in  their  conflict  against  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
Here,  however,  no  descendant  of  David,  no  personal 
Messiah  appears.  The  natural  order  gives  place  to  a 
cataclysmal  development.  The  "  one  like  the  son  of 
man,"  whose  appearance  "  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  " 
is  declared  with  genuinely  apocalyptic  features,  is  not 
a  personal  Messiah,  but  represents  the  kingdom  of  collec- 
tive Israel,  whose  distinguishing  qualities  are  set  forth  in 
this  way  to  contrast  it  with  the  preceding  visions,  as  the 
noble  human  characteristics  are  superior  to  those  of 
beasts. f  The  human  ruler  of  the  kingdom  of  God  does 

*  Colani,  Jesus-Christ  et  les  Croyances  Messianiques  de  son  Temps,  2me 
ed.  1864,  p.  1 6. 

f  Hitzig,  Das  Buch  Daniel  erklart,  1864,  p.  115  ;  Holtzmann,  Judenthum 
und  Christenthum  im  Zeitalter  der  apokryphischen  und  neutestamentlichen 
Literatur,  1867,  p.  198. 


260  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

not  appear  in  this  book.  The  overthrow  of  the  enemies 
of  the  nation  is  to  be  consummated  by  supernal  forces, 
when  "  the  great  prince  which  standeth  for  the  children 
of  thy  people,"  the  archangel  Michael,  "  shall  stand  up," 
and  those  "  found  written  in  the  book  "  shall  be  delivered. 
In  the  book  of  Enoch,  written  about  seventy  years 
after  that  of  Daniel,  in  the  name  of  the  Old-Testament 
worthy  who  "  walked  with  God,"  the  Messiah  appears  as 
no  earthly  prince  or  scion  of -a  king,  but  as  one  who  be- 
fore the  world  was  created  dwelt  in  the  bosom  of  God. 
He  is  called  "  the  Elect,"  "  the  Just,"  "  the  Anointed," 
"the  Son  of  Man,"  "  the  Son  of  a  man,"  "  the  Son  of  a 
woman."  Concealed  at  present  in  the  heavens,  he  shall 
at  length.appear,  the  elect  shall  stand  before  him,  and  the 
kings  of  the  earth  shall  fall  at  his  feet.*  Here  the  time 
of  the  catastrophic  end  is  near,  when  the  oppressors  of 
the  Jews  shall  fall,  and  after  the  judgment  the  Messiah 
shall  reign.  In  Hebrew  prophecy  and  Jewish  apocalyp- 
tics  the  end  of  the  travail-pains  (codives)  and  of  the 
tribulations  ((fcfyevf)  is  always  near.  The  apocryphal 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament  are,  for  the  most  part, 
contemporary  with  the  apocalypse  of  Enoch.  But  they 
are  silent  as  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah.  They  give  ex- 
pression to  what  may  be  called  a  Messianic  hope,  that  is, 
a  hope  of  the  return  of  Israel  to  Palestine,  the  perpetuity 
of  the  nation,  the  conversion  of  the  heathen,  the  chastise- 

*  "If  this  delineation  is  pre-Christian,  it  shows  how,  in  certain  narrow 
circles  at  least,  the  apprehension  of  the  Messiah  had  begun  to  be  formed  by 
means  of  the  idea  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  Daniel,  and  consequently  as  a  pre- 
existent  celestial  being." — Holtzmann,  Judenthum,  etc.  Dillmann  regards 
the  entire  book  as  a  Jewish  production,  Das  Buch  Henoch  iibersetzt  und 
erklart,  1853.  Hilgenfeld  maintains  the  Christian  origin  of  a  part  of  it,  and 
finds  thus  an  explanation  of  the  Messianic  titles,  "  Son  of  a  man,"  "  Son  of 
a  woman,"  Die  jiidische  Apokalyptik,  1857.  Dillmann,  in  article  "  Henoch" 
in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexicon,  reaffirms  his  former  position. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  261 

ment  of  the  enemies  of  the  Jews,  a  bodily  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  and  the  assembling  of  the  dispersed  people  in 
Jerusalem.  Power  is  given  of  God  to  David  "  forever," 
and  Elijah  shall  come  to  appease  the  divine  wrath  before 
the  judgment. 

As  we  approach  and  enter  upon  the  Christian  era,  we 
find  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  personality  of  the  Mes- 
siah again  well  defined.  There  appears  to  be  a  return  to 
the  ancient  prophetic  point  of  view  in  the  Targums  and 
the  Gospels.  The  Messiah  is  the  anointed  of  God,  the 
son  of  David,  the  king  of  Israel,*  the  one  who  is  to  come, 
he  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  he  that  cometh 
of  the  seed  of  David  and  from  Bethlehem, f  then  disap- 
pears, and  returns  suddenly  without  that  anyone  knows 
whence  he  comes.;):  He  shall  have  as  forerunners  Elijah 
and  other  prophets,  particularly  the  one  foretold  by 
Moses. §  His  office  is  to  be  at  once  religious  and  politi- 
cal, and  his  reign  is  called  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah, 
the  kingdom  of  David,  and  the  kingdom  of  God.[  He 
shall  separate  the  wheat  from  the  chaff ;  he  shall  pray  for 
the  sins  of  his  people  ;  he  shall  take  away  the  sin  of  the 
world  ;  he  shall  establish  the  kingdom  of  Israel  by  bring- 
ing back  the  ten  tribes,  and  deliver  the  Jews  from  their 
enemies  ;  he  shall  gain  a  victory  over  Gog,  the  personifi- 
cation of  the  pagan  power,  and  the  Jews  shall  share 
in  the  spoils.^f  The  expectation  of  the  Messiah  was,  then, 

*  Luke  ii.  36  ;  Mark  xii.  36  and  parallels  ;  John  i.  50. 

\  Luke  vii.  19  ;  Matt.  xxi.  9  ;  John  viii.  42. 

\  Targ.  Jonath.,  Micah  iv.  8. 

§  Mark  ix.  n,  vi.  15  ;  John  i.  21,  vii.  40. 

I  Targ.  Jonath. ,  ut  supra ;  Mark  xi.  10  ;  Targ.  Jonath. ,  Is.  xl.  9  and 
Micah  iv.  7. 

Tf  Matt.  iii.  12  ;  Targ.  Jonath.,  Is.  liii.  n  ;  John  i.  29  ;  Targ.  Jonath., 
Zech.  x.  4  ;  Luke  i.  74 ;  Targ.  Jonath.,  Is.  xxxiii.  23. 


262  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

the  expectation  of  the  consolation  of  Israel  and  the  re- 
demption of  Jerusalem.*  History  shows  the  prominence 
of  political  hopes  in  this  earnest  awaiting  of  the  Messiah. 
Josephus  can  explain  the  bold  insurrections  of  the  Jews 
against  the  Roman  power  only  by  an  "  oracle,"  which 
had  predicted  for  them  the  empire  of  the  world. f  The 
monarch  was  to  be  the  son  of  David,  and  the  seat  of  em- 
pire Jerusalem.  Those  disciples  of  Jesus  were,  accordingly, 
consistent  Jews  who  asked  of  him  a  place  as  viceroys  in 
his  Messianic  reign.  \ 

The  form  which  Jewish  Messianism  assumed  towards 
the  end  of  the  first  century  of  our  era  appears  in  the  fourth 
book  of  Esdras,  written  probably  by  a  Jew  about  A.D. 
96.  The  nation,  overthrown,  deprived  of  political  and 
military  power,  had  no  hope  but  in  the  supernal  powers. 
The  author  beholds  Messiah  rise  from  the  sea,  and  fly 
with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  while  the  earth  trembles 
wherever  he  turns  his  glance.  He  abides  in  heaven  with 
Enoch,  Moses,  and  Elijah,  who  had  been  removed  from 
the  earth  without  death,  until  at  the  end  he  comes  forth 
in  order  from  Mount  Zion  to  slay  with  his  flaming  breath 
the  heathen  who  were  besieging  it,  to  bring  back  the  ten 
tribes  and  enter  upon  his  reign  over  the  elect.  But  he  is 
not  appointed  to  preside  at  the  final  judgment.  Rather 
Jahveh  declares  by  the  mouth  of  Uriel  that  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  were  made  by  Him,  and  by  Him  shall  be 
their,  end.  It  thus  appears  that  from  the  time  of  Joel  to 
the  end  of  the  first  century  of  our  era  Jewish  Messianism 
underwent  great  modifications.  The  judgment  of  the 
valley  of  Jehoshaphat  becomes  a  terrible  world-catastro- 
phe to  which  the  teachings  of  the  Persian  religion  have 

*  Luke  ii.  25,  38.  f  De  Bello  Jud.  v.  5,  4. 

\  Mark  x.  35  and  parallels. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  263 

added  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  to  take  part  in  the 
great  assize.  The  personal  Messiah,  the  son  of  David, 
disappears  in  the  political  decadence  of  the  nation,  with 
a  priestly  aristocracy  for  two  centuries  at  the  head  of 
affairs,  with  the  Maccabeans  in  power,  descended  not 
from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  but  from  that  of  Levi,  and  with 
the  spiritualizing  of  the  Messianic  idea  which  prevailed 
during  the  period  of  the  apocalyptic  literature.  Finally, 
later  Judaism,  with  its  closed  canon  of  sacred  Scripture, 
its  veneration  of  the  letter,  its  fine-spun  interpretations, 
its  allegorizing,  brought  back  the  original  Messianic  con- 
ception, and  restored  the  effaced  image  of  the  son  of 
David,  which  was  hailed  with  joy  by  the  helpless  and  op- 
pressed people  of  the  era  of  Jesus. 

In  studying  the  relation  which  Jesus  regarded  himself 
as  holding  to  Jewish  Messianism,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the  question  at  what  period 
he  openly  made  this  relation  known.  This  question  ap- 
pears to  be  complicated  by  the  different  points  of  view 
of  the  evangelists.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  say 
that  it  appears  on  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  Gospels 
that  he  regarded  himself  as  in  some  sense  the  Anointed, 
the  Christ.  The  terms  employed  by  him  to  designate 
the  principle  that  he  came  to  establish  are  the  ones  which 
were  familiar  to  the  Jews  of  his  time  as  Messianic  expres- 
sions, the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven.* 
John  the  Baptist  is  said  to  have  announced  the  approach 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  is,  of  the  Messiah ;  and 
Jesus  during  a  part  of  his  Galilean  ministry  speaks  of  it 
in  the  same  way  as  future,  although  he  does  not  represent 

*  Matthew  generally  employs  the  latter  term,  Mark  and  Luke  use  only 
the  former.  These  terms  appear,  however,  to  be  sometimes  used  synony- 
mously with  our  expression  "  the  life  to  come." 


264  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

it -with  the  terrible  features  which  his  forerunner  gives  it, 
but  rather  as  the  "  good  news.*  Later  he  speaks  of  it  as 
already  come.  His  works  show  the  advent  of  the  new 
reign.f  This  kingdom  cometh  not  with  visible  signs,  as 
the  Jews  suppose,  but  is  already  in  their  midst. J  The 
new  life  of  renunciation,  peace,  and  joy  which  he  has 
brought  to  the  world  is  the  veritable  kingdom  of  God. 
It  is  Christianity  itself,  "  a  treasure,"  a  "  pearl  of  great 
price."  In  order  to  enter  this  kingdom  one  must  become 
as  a  little  child. §  Blessed  are  the  poor,  the  persecuted, 
the  weary  and  heavy-laden,  for  to  such  belongs  the  king- 
dom, while  the  rich  will  hardly  enter  it.  Far  from  being 
limited  to  Israel,  there  is  danger  that  it  be  taken  from 
this  people  and  given  to  others.]  It  is  evident,  then,  that 
one  has  not  to  read  far  in  the  Gospels  to  find  that  the 
Messianic  conception  of  Jesus  was  widely  different  from 
that  of  the  Jews  of  his  own  or  of  any  previous  time. 
"  In  making  supreme  the  spiritual  character  of  his  king- 
dom he  removed  the  confusion  of  the  temporal  and  the 
spiritual,  the  visible  and  the  invisible,  which  inhered  in 
the  Hebrew  theocracy."  It  is  safe  to  say,  in  spite  of  the 
Judaistic  coloring  which  has  been  given  to  some  of  his 
words,  particularly  by  the  first  evangelist,  that  he  recog- 
nized no  special  national  claims  to  or  rights  in  his  king- 
dom. His  word  is  a  leaven  which  is  to  transform  human 
society  by  a  process  of  development,  and  not  by  violence 
and  convulsions.  As  the  Jewish  national  Messiah,  as 
assuming  the  role  of  that  expected  person,  he  could  not 
have  spoken  as  he  did  without  conscious  deception  or 
superlative  folly. 

*  Mark  i.  15.  \.  Luke  xvii.  20. 

f  Matt.  xi.  4-6,  xii.  28.  §  Mark  x.  14,  and  parallels, 

fl  Matt.  xxi.  43. 


THE   ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  26$ 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  relation  which 
Jesus  assumed  towards  the  popular  Messianic  titles  of  his 
own  and  previous  times.  "  Son  of  David  "  he  never  calls 
himself,  and  when  the  blind  men,  the  woman  of  Canaan, 
the  beggar,  and  the  multitude  hail  him  with  this  title,  he 
pays  no  attention  to  it.  Adopting  the  rabbinical  exege- 
sis, he  once  shows  by  a  forcible  argumentum  ad  /wminem 
that  according  to  the  terms  of  a  Psalm,  probably  errone- 
ously ascribed  to  David,  the  Messiah  cannot  properly  be 
called  the  son  of  that  king.  The  conclusion  of  this  re- 
markable argument  appears  to  be  that  he  regarded  the 
Messiah  as  greater  than  a  temporal  monarch,  not  to  be 
compared  to  the  greatest  of  earthly  kings,  and  not  a  son 
even  of  David,  the  grand  Messianic  type  of  his  nation.* 
The  appellation,  "  Son  of  God,"  was  undoubtedly  a  Mes- 
sianic title  current  among  the  Jews  previously  to  and  at 
the  time  of  Christ,  and  the  evangelists  employ  it  in  this 
sense.  They  report  that  a  voice  from  above  proclaimed 
it  at  the  baptism  and  the  transfiguration,  and  Mark  re- 
ports that  the  demoniacs  accosted  Jesus  by  this  title.  At 
Csesarea  Philippi  Peter's  celebrated  response,  "  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  was  gladly  ac- 
cepted by  Jesus  according  to  the  account  of  the  first 
evangelist.-)-  Before  the  High-priest  Jesus  acknowledged 
himself  to  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.J  These  latter 
words  are  not,  in  the  first  place,  very  well  authenticated, 
since  it  does  not  appear  that  any  one  of  his  disciples  was 
present  at  the  scene,  Peter  alone  being  mentioned  as  hav- 

*  Matt.  xxii.  42-45  ;  Mark  xii.  35-37.     See  Meyer  in  loc. 

f  Matt.  xvi.  16.  According  to  Mark,  Peter's  answer  was  simply,  "  Thou 
art  the  Christ,"  while  according  to  Luke  it  was,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ  of 
God."  These  record  no  commendation  of  Peter  for  the  answer. 

\  Matt.  xxvi.  63,  64. 


266  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

ing  followed  him  at  a  distance,  and  as  being,  according  to 
one  account,  "  outside  in  the  court,"  and  according  to 
another,  "  below  in  the  court."  *  At  all  events,  when  we 
take  into  account  his  repeated  and  undoubtedly  genuine 
declarations  of  the  spiritual  and  unworldly  character  of 
his  kingdom,  we  are  constrained  either  to  reject  all  that 
appear  to  have  a  contrary  meaning,  or  to  modify  them 
to  accord  with  the  former.  The  fact  appears  to  be 
that  Jesus  intentionally  avoided  applying  to  himself 
the  standard  Messianic  title,  "  Son  of  God,"  and  that 
he  chose  the  simple  appellation,  "  Son,"  to  express  what 
was  deepest  in  his  consciousness,  his  spiritual  relation 
to  God,  the  Father.  He  teaches,  it  is  true,  that  all 
men  are  children  of  God  ;  that  even  prodigals  are  still 
sons ;  that  prayer  should  be  addressed  to  God  as  our 
Father,  and  that  there  is  a  special  sense  in  which  men 
may  become  sons  of  God  on  certain  conditions. f  Yet 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  claimed  for  himself  a 
pre-eminence  among  the  sons  of  God  which  entitled  him 
to  call  himself  "  the  Son.";f  He  is  reported  as  claiming 
for  himself  an  especial  knowledge  of  God  and  the  func- 
tion of  a  pre-eminent  revelator  of  His  will.  §  When  he 
calls  himself  "the  Son,"  then,  he  appears  to  speak  out 
of  the  profound  consciousness  of  the  indwelling  of  the 
Father,  of  intimate  communion  with  Him,  and  not  at 
all  to  wish  to  be  understood  as  claiming  to  be  the 
Messiah  in  the  Jewish  sense  of  the  word,  but  rather  the 
Son  of  God  in  "  the  mystic  and  Christian  meaning  "  of 
the  term. 

There  remains  to  be  considered  the  term  by  which  Jesus 
usually   designated    himself,    "  the  Son    of   Man,"    while 

*  Matt.  xxvi.  58,  69  ;  Mark  xiv.  54,  56.       \  Mark  xiii.  32. 

f  Matt.  v.  9,  45.  §  Matt.  xi.  27  ;  Luke  x.  32. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  267 

neither  the  people  nor  the  disciples  apply  it  to  him.  The 
reasons  for  believing  that  he  did  not  by  this  appellation 
wish  to  declare  himself  as  the  expected  Messiah  are  very 
strong,  although  some  noted  exegetes  have  not  been  con- 
vinced by  them.*  In  the  first  place  this  was  not  a  common 
designation  of  the  Messiah  among  the  Jews  before  Christ 
nor  in  his  time.  It  appears,  indeed,  in  the  book  of  Daniel 
and  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Enoch.  In  the  former  it  is 
employed  in  connection  with  apocalyptic  visions  of  a 
Messianic  character  in  the  general  sense  of  the  word. 
The  fact  that  the  hope  in  a  personal  Messiah  is  foreign  to 
the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  is  to 
Obadiah  and  Malachi,  furnishes  a  strong  presumption 
against  a  personal  reference  in  the  passage  in  Daniel  in 
which  one  appears  "  as  the  Son  of  Man."  Rather,  as  has 
already  been  said,  the  term  is  here  applied  to  a  kingdom 
which  the  writer  represents  under  the  symbol  not  of  a 
beast,  but  of  the  noble  human  figure,  f  As  to  the  book 
of  Enoch,  the  appellations,  "  Son  of  Man  "  and  "  Son  of  a 
man,"  there  employed  of  the  Messiah  may  be  of  Christian 
origin,  and  if  they  are  not,  this  single  instance  of  their  use 
is  of  little  importance.  It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that 
Jesus  would  have  borrowed  the  term  from  such  a  writing. 
The  language  used  by  Jesus  at  Caesarea  Philippi  shows 
that  he  did  not  intend  by  the  term  to  designate  himself  as 
the  Messiah,  and  that  he  could  not  have  supposed  the 
disciples  to  understand  it  in  that  sense.  The  words : 
"  Who  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?  "  cannot 
mean,  who  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Messiah,  am  ?  Jesus 

*  Particularly  Meyer,  Commentar,  i.  I.  p.  223  f,  and  Keim,  Geschichte 
Jesu,  ii.  p.  570. 

f  Hitzig,  Das  Buch  Daniel,  p  116  ;  Colani,  p.  112  ;  Weisse,  Die  Evan- 
gelienfrage,  pp.  101,  102. 


268  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

could  not  thus  have  put  into  Peter's  mouth  the  answer  for 
which  he  commends  him,  and  of  which  he  declares  that  it 
came  by  a  revelation  of  God.  It  is  probable,  then,  that 
Jesus  chose  for  himself  this  by  no  means  current  and 
popular  designation  of  the  Messiah  with  the  design  not  of 
saying  directly  that  he  was  that  expected  one,  but  rather 
to  mark  himself,  in  opposition  to  the  splendid  Jewish- 
Messianic  expectations,  as  Man,  as  one  who  completely 
participated  in  all  that  is  human,  qui  nihil  humani  a  se 
alienum  putat*  It  appears,  too,  according  to  Mark,f  that 
notwithstanding  Christ's  repeated  use  of  the  term,  the 
people  had  not  prior  to  the  event  at  Caesarea  Philippi 
recognized  him  as  Messiah,  but  had  thought  him  to  be 
John  the  Baptist  or  one  of  the  prophets,  and  that  not 
even  his  apostles  would  have  known  him  without  the 
special  revelation  granted  to  Peter.  Again,  the  claim 
which  Jesus  made  of  the  authority  as  Son  of  Man  to 
forgive  sins,  \  is  not  set  up  as  pertaining  to  Messiah, 
otherwise  he  would  probably  have  employed  instead  of 
*'  Son  of  Man  "  an  unambiguous  term,  as  "  Son  of  God,"  or 
"  Son  of  David."  Rather  he  speaks  of  himself  as  spe- 
cially commissioned  to  represent  the  human  race,  and 
accordingly  as  authorized  to  pronounce  the  judgment  of 
forgiveness  on  human  transgression.  This  son  of  Man- 
kind, this  archetypal  Man,  sprung  from  the  race  "  crowned 
with  glory  and  honor,"  is  endowed  with  the  highest  human 
dignity,  and  clothed  with  a  divine  prerogative. 

If,  then,  Jesus  did  not  regard  himself  as  the  Messiah  in 
the  sense  of  the  term  current  among  the  Jews  and  gen- 
erally set  forth  by  the  ancient  prophets,  in  what  sense  did 
he  apply  that  title  to  himself?  It  appears,  according  to  a 

*  Baur,  Vorlesungen  iiber  neutestamentliche  Theologie,  1864,  p.  81. 
f  Chap.  viii.  27.  \  Matt.  ix.  6. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  269 

tradition  which  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
doubting,  that  at  Caesarea  Philippi  he  at  least  allowed  the 
Messianic  appellation  to  be  applied  to  himself,  whether, 
according  to  Matthew  he  received  it  with  approval,  or, 
according  to  Mark,  passively  and  in  silence.  Now,  familiar 
with  the  literature  of  his  nation  as  he  must  have  been, 
Messianism  could  have  been  no  strange  idea  to  him.  It  is 
not  improbable  that  he  had  been  profoundly  impressed 
with  the  religious  features  of  the  golden  age,  the  Messi- 
anic future,  which  abound  in  many  of  the  prophetic  de- 
lineations. The  proposition  is  by  no  means  hazardous, 
is,  in  fact,  psychologically  grounded,  that  he  apprehended 
the  Messianism  of  the  ancient  seers  in  accordance  with  his 
nature,  his  religious  genius.  May  not  he  who  treated  the 
law  with  so  much  freedom  have  also  transformed  the 
prophets?  One  cannot  think  of  him  as  associating  the 
advent  of  the  Messianic  age  with  scenes  of  carnage  and 
"  garments  rolled  in  blood,"  nor  with  apocalyptic  imagery 
and  cataclysmal  terrors.  He  could  no  more  be  a  Judas 
Maccabeus  or  a  Simon  Bar-Cochab,  than  he  could  ima- 
gine himself  as  ushering  in  the  Messianic  kingdom  by  a 
catastrophic  descent  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.  To  such 
a  soul  as  his  the  "  future  age  "  of  Israel's  glowing  prophecy 
and  indestructible  hope  must  have  presented  itself  as  a 
"restitution  of  all  things  "  in  a  moral  and  spiritual  sense,  a 
veritable  kingdom  of  God  whose  subjects  should  love  one 
another  as  he  loved  men,  and  practise  his  gentleness, 
humility,  patience,  and  obedience  to  the  Father.  But 
too  much  emphasis  cannot  be  laid  upon  the  fact  that  to 
Jesus  this  "  future  age"  (fxioov  ^tsXXcor')  was  not  a  far-off 
epoch.  Its  hour  had  already  struck.  No  need  of  apoca- 
lypses and  visions  to  herald  it !  The  kingdom  of  God 
was  already  in  the  midst  of  a  people  slow  of  heart  to 


270  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

apprehend  it.  The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected  was 
already  laid  at  the  corner  of  the  world's  Messianic  temple. 
In  declaring  himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  then,  Jesus,  with  a 
consciousness  of  his  moral  and  spiritual  superiority,  with 
a  sublime  confidence  in  himself  as  a  king  of  men,  places 
himself  at  the  head  of  this  new  kingdom  of  God,  and 
stakes  its  entire  fortune  upon  the  enthusiasm  and  love 
which  his  personality  may  inspire. 

In  greeting  with  approval,  then,  Peter's  confession  at 
Caesarea  Philippi  Jesus  accepted  the  Messiahship  accord- 
ing to  his  own  apprehension  of  it,  that  is,  in  a  transformed 
sense.  Now  the  die  is  cast.  The  momentous  step  is 
taken.  But  he  who  has  made  the  high  resolve  does  not 
think  of  himself  as  a  triumphant  Messiah,  marching  at  the 
head  of  conquering  legions  to  restore  the  fallen  fortunes 
of  the  line  of  David.  Rather  with  a  heavy  heart  and  in 
the  shadow  of  the  cross  he  proceeds  towards  Jerusalem. 
In  the  language  of  the  evangelist,  from  that  time  he  "  began, 
to  show  his  disciples  that  he  must  go  to  Jerusalem  and 
suffer  many  things  from  the  elders  and  chief  priests  and 
scribes,  and  be  put  to  death."  Transformation  of  the 
traditional  and  current  Messianism  could  not  be  more 
radical  than  this.  A  Messiah  who  should  suffer  at  the 
hands  of  the  elders  and  chief  priests,  who  should  give 
himself  up  to  his  enemies,  who  should  be  put  to  death, 
was  so  contrary  to  all  that  the  prophets  had  taught  and 
the  people  believed  of  this  person,  that  it  is  no  wonder 
that  the  Jews  have  never  accepted  him  as  their  Messiah. 
How  complete  was  the  transformation  of  the  Messianic 
conception  may  be  seen  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  in  which 
•he  labors  to  make  acceptable  to  Jews  the  idea  of  a  suffer- 
ing Messiah.  Whence,  then,  did  Jesus  derive  his  Messianic 
conception  ?  It  has  already  been  intimated  that  one  will 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  2/1 

not  greatly  err  if  one  answers  that  he  derived  it  from  his 
own  nature.  But  we  are  led  to  think  of  an  Old  Testament 
source  when  we  recall  the  impressive  scene  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Nazareth  when  he  read  from  the  second  Isaiah 
the  beautiful  words  about  preaching  the  glad  tidings  to 
the  poor,  proclaiming  deliverance  to  the  captives,  the 
recovery  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  the  op- 
pressed, to. proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord. 
That  Jesus,  when  he  had  read  these  words,  and  said  : 
"  To-day  is  this  scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears,"  applied 
to  his  own  office  and  ministry  to  men  the  terms  which  the 
prophet  used  in  reference  to  himself,  is  by  no  means  im- 
probable. The  fifty-third  of  Isaiah,  then,  that  pathetic 
"  hymn  to  grief,"  in  which  the  great  prophet  of  the 
Babylonian  age  represents  the  hope  of  his  nation  as  cen- 
tred in  the  pious,  theocratic  remnant  of  the  people,  "  the 
servant  of  Jahveh,"  "  oppressed  and  afflicted,"  "  brought 
as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,"  must  have  found  a  quick 
response  in  his  mind,  and,  if  it  did  not  suggest  his  mission 
to  him,  must  have  confirmed  his  antecedent  conception  of 
it.*  But  apart  from  suggestions  found  in  the  prophets, 
the  transformation  of  the  Messianic  type,  one  would  say, 
must  have  been  inevitable  in  a  mind  like  that  of  Jesus. 
Conscious  of  a  mission  of  Messianic  import  to  his  nation 
— that  is,  a  mission  of  salvation,  of  deliverance, — one  of 
his  clear  insight  could  not  but  see  the  hopelessness,  the 
folly,  of  their  temporal  expectations,  and  realize  that  the 
only  Messiah  that  could  help  them,  the  only  Messiah  that 
God  would  ever  send  to  them,  must  be  such  a  one  as  him- 
self, the  moral  reformer,  the  religious  teacher,  the  Anointed 
of  the  divine  Spirit,  the  man  who  could  sacrifice  himself 
for  them. 

*  See  Colani,  ut  supra,  to  whom  acknowledgments  are  due  for  suggestions 
and  interpretations. 


2/2  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

If,  now,  Jesus  actually  used  the  language  ascribed  to 
him  by  the  evangelists  (and  it  is  open  to  grave  doubts 
that  he  did  so),  in  which  he  represents  himself  as  fulfilling 
prophecies  in  his  death,  if  we  can  without  a  shock  think  of 
such  a  character  as  going  to  his  death  "  in  order  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  "  which  was  spoken  by  any  oracle  what- 
ever, then  we  must  believe  that  he  set  aside  all  the 
prophecies  of  the  royalist-Messianic  sort,  and,  by  a  spiritu- 
alistic interpretation  not  at  all  uncommon  in  his  age,  read 
his  fate  in  that  of  the  humble  "  servant  of  Jahveh  "  who 
was  "  bruised  for  the  iniquities  "  of  the  people.  If  one 
will,  let  one  call  this  proceeding  by  which  a  word  is  re- 
tained whose  meaning  has  been  radically  changed,  "  an 
accommodation  to  the  weakness  of  his  disciples."  A 
conscious  deception  it  certainly  was  not,  since  immediately 
after  his  acceptance  of  Peter's  confession  at  Caesarea  Phi- 
lippi  Jesus  began  to  speak  of  his  humiliation.  If  the  dis- 
ciples were  mistaken  in  their  apprehension  of  the  nature 
of  his  Messiahship,  it  was  because  of  that  dulness  which 
made  it  impossible  for  them  during  their  association  with 
him  to  comprehend  the  spiritual  character  of  his  king- 
dom. Rather  we  have  here  the  transformation  which  a 
great  soul  gave  to  an  effete  idea,  a  vain  expectation ;  a 
transformation  which  the  literalists  of  his  own  time  could 
not  understand,  a  transformation  at  which  the  literalists 
of  all  subsequent  ages  have  stumbled. 

This  spiritual  apprehension  of  his  mission  and  his  Mes- 
siahship is  the  incontestable  fact  from  which  the  considera- 
tion of  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  the  apocalyptic  eschatology 
of  the  synoptic  Gospels  must  proceed.  From  this  point 
of  view  the  probability  amounts  almost  to  a  demonstration 
that  he  cannot  by  any  express  word  or  intimation  have 
encouraged  the  expectation  which  the  evangelists  certainly 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  2?$ 

entertained  that  he  would  descend  to  the  earth  surrounded 
by  angels  to  establish  the  kingdom  of  God.  There  would 
be  some  reason  for  charging  this  expectation  to  him  if  it 
did  not  admit  of  another  explanation.  Now,  its  explana- 
tion is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  early  followers  of  Jesus 
were  Jews,  and  must  have  cherished  the  Jewish-Messianic 
hopes  and  doctrines.  In  spite  of  all  his  teachings  to  the 
contrary,  they  believed,  even  after  his  death,  that  he  should 
have  been  a  temporal  Messiah,  and  saw  all  their  hopes 
shattered  by  the  tragedy  of  Calvary.  To  believe  in  Jesus 
was  for  them  to  believe  that  he  was  the  Jewish  Messiah 
who  would  establish  the  longed-for  theocratic  kingdom. 
They  could  not  continue  to  believe  in  him,  and  relin- 
quish the  expectation  that  he  would  yet  be  a  veritable 
Messiah,  coming  in  glory  and  power  to  efface  the  igno- 
miny of  his  humiliation  and  death.  Hence  the  affinity  of 
Jewish  and  Christian  apocalyptics.  Out  of  what  slowness 
of  heart  to  comprehend  the  nature  of  Jesus,  out  of  how 
fundamental  a  misconception  of  him  did  this  idea  spring ! 
It  is  one  of  those  dreadful  contradictions  which  dulness 
always  perpetrates  when  it  attempts  to  interpret  greatness. 
A  belittling  apocalyptic  attachment  is  joined  to  the  great- 
est career  in  history  which  had  been  finished  with  sublime 
grandeur  on  Calvary,  and  Jesus,  in  his  earthly  existence, 
is  made  a  mere  precursor  of  himself,  his  life  "  a  Christian 
preface  to  a  Jewish  poem." 

That  the  Jewish-Christian  Messianic  expectations  should 
have  found  expression  in  the  Gospels  is  antecedently 
probable  on  the  presumption  that  these  writings  are  the 
products  of  their  times,  and  not  infallible  oracles  dictated 
through  supernatural  intervention  ;  and  one  cannot  long 
hesitate  when  one  must  choose  between  this  hypothesis 
and  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  actually  spoke  of  a  second 
18 


274  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

coming  as  the  evangelists  represent.  At  about  the  time 
when  the  synoptists  wrote  Christians  were  intensely  occu- 
pied with  the  expectation  of  a  near  return  of  Christ  to  the 
earth.  We  know  this  from  the  book  of  Revelation  in 
which  the  second  advent  is  depicted  with  the  vividness 
and  materialism  of  Jewish  apocalyptics,  and  from  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  in  which  the  "  groaning  creation  "  and 
the  ardent  longing  for  the  Parousia  are  by  no  means  sub- 
ordinate features.  Whether  the  form  which  is  given  to 
the  expression  of  the  expectation  in  the  several  passages 
be  charged  directly  to  the  evangelists  or  to  well-inten- 
tioned alterations  of  the  text,  it  does  not  seem  too  much 
to  say  that  "  it  were  a  veritable  miracle  if  these  feverish 
beliefs  had  left  no  impression  upon  our  Gospels."  But 
we  are  not  left  to  conjecture  as  to  the  freedom  of  the 
evangelistic  handling  of  the  matter.  The  third  Gospel 
which  was  written  subsequently  to  the  capture  of  Jerusa- 
lem by  Titus  shows  what  liberties  an  evangelist  allowed 
himself  with  the  text  of  the  celebrated  discourse  ascribed 
to  Jesus  on  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  the  "last 
things."  Besides  omitting  the  passage  in  which  Jesus 
acknowledges  his  ignorance  of  the  time  of  the  catastrophe, 
he  rejects  that  concerning  the  abomination  in  the  holy 
place,  probably  because  he  knew  that  no  pagan  idol  had 
been  set  up  there,  and  adds  details  from  his  own  knowl- 
edge of  the  events  occurring  in  the  investment  of  the  city, 
the  destruction  of  life  and  the  captivity  of  the  people.* 
It  is  significant,  too,  that  he  strikes  out  the  words  which 
Matthew  puts'  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  to  the  effect  that 
the  second  coming  will  take  place  "  immediately  after " 
the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem,  doubtless  because  he  knew 
that  events  had  not  confirmed  them. 

*  Chap.  xxi.  24. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  2/5 

What  sort  of  eschatological  sayings  were  ascribed  to 
Jesus  in  good  faith,  no  doubt,  by  the  early  Christians  may 
be  seen  in  the  celebrated  account  of  the  luxuriant  growth 
of  grapes  to  be  expected  in  the  Messianic  kingdom,  which 
Irenaeus  took  from  Papias'  work  on  the  sayings  of  Christ. 
Now  this  good  Bishop,  Papias,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a 
diligent  collector  of  information  regarding  the  teachings 
of  Jesus,  not  from  writings,  which  he  held  in  small  esti- 
mation, but  from  the  "  living  voice "  of  oral  tradition. 
This  account  of  the  wonderful  vineyards  which  the  saints 
should  enjoy  after  the  second  coming  of  Christ  and  the 
attendant  renewal  of  the  "  creation  "  he  says  he  obtained 
from  the  apostle  John,  and  Irenaeus  gives  it  as  an  example 
of  Christ's  teaching.*  In  the  times  of  the  Messianic  reign, 
it  appears,  there  will  grow  vines  having  ten  thousand 
shoots,  and  each  shoot  ten  thousand  branches,  and  each 
branch  ten  thousand  twigs,  and  each  twig  ten  thousand 
clusters,  and  each  cluster  ten  thousand  berries,  and  the 
juice  of  each  berry  will  make  twenty-five  measures  of  wine ! 
Now,  while  no  one  will  claim  that  Jesus  ever  said  any- 
thing of  this  kind,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  external 
authentication  of  the  prophecy  is  remarkably  good.  Be- 
sides being  directly  referred  to  John,  it  is  confirmed  by 
the  oldest  and  most  important  witness  to  our  first  two 
Gospels.  Its  sensuousness  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to 
the  New-Jerusalem  prophecies  of  the  Apocalypse.  As  to 
the  question  of  its  origin  there  can  be  but  one  answer.  It 
sprang  from  the  second-advent  expectations  of  the  early 
Church.  The  fact  that  it  was  believed  by  disciples  of 
the  apostles  to  be  an  authentic  saying  of  Jesus  lends 
strong  support  to  the  hypothesis  that  some  words  re- 
garding his  second  appearance  ascribed  to  him  in  the 

*  "  Quemadmodum  docebat  Dominus  et  dicebat." 


276  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Gospels  find  their  most  probable  explanation  in  the  same 
source. 

The  foregoing  considerations  prepare  us  to  look  in  the 
Gospels  for  a  more  or  less  free  handling  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  in  accordance  with  the  Jewish-Christian  Messianic 
expectations  which  were  current  and  dominant  in  the 
early  Church.  What  is  more  natural  than  that  to  the 
solemn  injunction  at  the  close  of  the  parable  of  the  ten  vir- 
gins :  "  Watch,  therefore,  for  ye  know  not  the  day  nor 
the  hour/'  tradition  should  have  added  the  words,  "where- 
in the  Son  of  Man  cometh  "  ?  *  They  stand  in  many  manu- 
scripts, but  Tischendorf  omits  them.  It  does  not,  indeed, 
appear  improbable  that  Jesus  should  have  enjoined  watch- 
fulness and  fidelity  upon  his  disciples,  and  have  employed 
terms  applicable  to  all  men  in  view  of  the  uncertainty 
which  belongs  to  all  human  calculations.  He  may,  indeed, 
have  said  that  the  lord  of  the  servant  will  come  in  a  day 
when  the  latter  is  not  looking  for  him.  But  he  could 
hardly  have  said  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  comparable 
to  a  state  of  things  in  which  men  are  watching  for  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  with  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
Such  words  imply  a  limitation  and  degradation  of  this 
kingdom,  and  give  it  a  temporary  and  apocalyptic  char- 
acter quite  incompatible  with  his  exalted  spiritual  con- 
ception of  it.  The  critical  judgment  cannot  but  attach 
suspicion  to  such  formulas  as  "  wherein  the  Son  of  Man 
cometh/'  especially  in  view  of  the  probably  liturgical 
formula  which  has  been  added  to  the  Lord's  prayer,  "  for 
thine  is  the  kingdom/'  etc.  Irreverent  as  this  suspicion 
may  appear  to  some  devout  minds,  we  must  entertain  it 
if  we  will  preserve  many  of  the  fine  parables  of  Jesus 
from  a  merely  apocalyptic  application,  and  accord  to  them 

*  Matt.  xxv.  13. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  2// 

that  universal  scope  which  alone  agrees  with  the  general 
character  of  his  teachings.  The  reverence,  however,  which 
it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  us  to  cultivate  and  pre- 
serve is  a  reverence  for  Jesus  rather  than  a  reverence  for 
his  biographers.  No  one  can  read  without  profound  emo- 
tion the  words  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  in  Gethsemane : 
"  Watch,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation.'*  We  feel  that  it 
would  be  a  great  loss  if  they  were  struck  from  the  record. 
But  the  apocalyptic  words  ascribed  to  him  about  coming 
with  the  angels  on  the  clouds  move  no  one,  unless  it  be 
those  misguided  people  who  still  look  for  him  so  to  come, 
and  set  the  day  of  his  return  ;  and  there  are  not  a  few  who 
would  experience  a  sense  of  relief  if  it  could  be  made  to 
appear  probable  that  they  were  not  spoken  by  him  at  all. 
It  does  not,  however,  at  all  follow  that,  if  Jesus  neither 
himself  indulged  in  nor  gave  encouragement  to  apocalyp- 
tic visions  of  the  Jewish  sort,  he  made  no  forecast  of  the 
future  fortune  of  his  kingdom  on  the  earth.  His  faith  in 
the  success  of  his  word  is  expressed  in  the  parables  of  the 
leaven  and  the  grain  of  mustard.  If,  however,  any  one 
should  object  that  the  subject  is  regarded  in  this  chapter 
from  a  subjective,  a-priori  point  of  view,  let  that  one 
consider  the  manner  in  which  three  of  the  evangelists,  the 
synoptists,  have  reported  one  of  these  prophecies  of  Jesus. 
The  first  evangelist,  after  making  him  declare  that  the 
Son  of  Man  is  to  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  the 
angels,  puts  into  his  mouth  the  words  :  "  Truly  do  I  say 
to  you,  there  are  some  of  those  standing  here  who  will 
not  taste  of  death  till  they  have  seen  the  Son  of  Man 
coming  in  his  kingdom."  *  Mark  reports  the  words  as 
follows  :  "  There  are  some  of  those  standing  here  who 
will  not  taste  of  death  till  they  have  seen  that  the  king- 

*  Matt.  xvi.  28. 


278  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

dom  of  God  hath  come  with  power."  *  But  Luke  says : 
"  Till  they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of  God."  f  The  pas- 
sages are  almost  verbatim  the  same,  except  in  the  closing 
words.  Plainly,  no  one  can  tell  precisely  what  Jesus  said 
on  this  occasion.  According  to  the  first  synoptist  cer- 
tainly, and  perhaps  according  to  the  second,  he  employed 
the  terms  of  Jewish  apocalyptics.  According  to  Luke,  he 
simply  foretold  the  spiritual  development  of  his  kingdom. 
Did  the  writer  of  Matthew  add  the  apocalyptic  words,  or 
did  some  copyist  add  them  ?  The  fact  that  Luke,  who 
wrote  last,  omitted  them,  favors  the  hypothesis  that  he 
exercised  precisely  the  sort  of  critical  discrimination 
which  is  in  question  in  the  present  discussion.  It  is  not 
by  any  means,  however,  to  be  maintained  that  Jesus 
employed  no  figurative  language  in  speaking  of  his  future 
relation  to  his  cause.  It  is  plain  that  he  identifies  his  work 
and  himself:  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always";  "  Where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am 
I  in  the  midst  of  you."  That  he  used  very  strong  figures 
of  speech  on  occasion  is  apparent  from  such  passages  as 
Luke  x.  1 8,  19.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  too,  that  with 
the  insight  of  a  true  seer  he  foresaw  that  the  welfare  of 
the  Jewish  people  depended  on  their  acceptance  of  his 
teachings,  on  abandoning  their  wild  Messianic  dreams, 
on  rendering  to  Caesar  the  things  that  were  Caesar's  and 
to  God  the  things  that  were  God's.  The  particular  case 
of  the  Galileans  whom  Pilate  had  massacred  calls  forth 
from  him  a  pathetic  prophecy  upon  the  nation  :  "  Except 
ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish."  \ 

An  examination  of  some  of  the  passages  in  the  synop- 
tic Gospels  in  which  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is  men- 

*  Mark  ix.  I.  f  Luke  ix.  27. 

\  Luke  xiii.  3,  cf.  xx.  15,  16. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

tioned  will  show  the  application  of  the  principles  set  forth 
in  the  foregoing  discussion  of  the  subject.  Let  us  take 
first  a  passage  found  in  the  first  Gospel  only  :  *  "  And 
when  they  persecute  you  in  one  city,  flee  to  another. 
For  truly  do  I  say  to  you,  ye  will  not  have  gone  over  the 
cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  Man  hath  come."  It  has 
already  been  pointed  out  in  a  foregoing  chapter  that  this 
discourse  in  its  main  features  is  wholly  out  of  place  in 
this  early  period  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  when  the  dis- 
ciples are  sent  out  on  a  missionary  journey.  It  belongs 
undoubtedly  to  a  later  period  of  his  work.f  But  in  any 
case  it  is  irreconcilable  with  the  saying  ascribed  to  Jesus 
in  another  place  £  that  before  his  second  coming  the  Gos- 
pel will  be  published  throughout  the  whole  world.  Later 
experiences  of  persecution  and  flight  probably  gave  its 
existing  form  to  the  passage,  experiences  in  which  was 
mingled  an  ardent  expectation  of  the  coming  of  Christ  to 
put  an  end  to  the  trials  of  his  followers.  The  occasion  of 
the  flight  of  the  Jewish  Christians  from  Jerusalem  to  Pella  § 
to  escape  the  persecutions  of  their  compatriots,  when 
they  doubtless  consoled  themselves  with  the  hope  that 
the  advent  would  take  place  before  they  should  be  en- 
tirely driven  from  their  country,  furnishes  the  most 
probable  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  words. 

Another  passage  peculiar  to  Matthew  contains  words 
which  it  is  very  improbable  that  Jesus  can  have  spoken.  || 

*  Chap.  x.  23. 

f  Meyer,  Commentar  in  loc.  Weiffenbach,  Der  Wiederkunftsgedanke 
Jesu,  1873,  p.  300  ;  Colani,  p.  105. 

\  Matt.  xxiv.  14. 

§  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  5. 

I  Chap.  xix.  28.  Peculiar  to  Matthew  in  this  connection.  See  Luke 
xxii.  30,  where  the  words  are  extremely  inappropriate  after  the  supper,  and 
"surcharge  the  picture  with  a  new  Judaistic  coloring." 


280  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Peter,  having  asked  what  the  disciples  who  had  left  all  to 
follow  Jesus  should  have,  this  evangelist  makes  Jesus 
answer :  "  In  the  renovation  "  ["  the  restitution  of  all 
things,"  or  the  Messianic  reign],  "  when  the  Son  of  Man 
sitteth  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  who  have  followed 
me  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel."  These  words  are  not  at  all  necessary  to  the  sense, 
for  those  which  follow  them  here,  as  well  as  in  the  other 
synoptists,  are  an  answer  to  the  question.  Besides,  the 
passage  is  in  flagrant  opposition  to  the  refusal  of  Jesus  to 
assure  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee  places  of  honor  in  his  king- 
dom :  "  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask,  for  to  sit  on  my  right 
hand  or  on  my  left  is  not  mine  to  give."  He  does  prom- 
ise them,  indeed,  that  they  shall  drink  of  his  cup  and  be 
baptized  with  his  baptism.  Here  is  a  true  word  of  Jesus 
evangelic  and  profound.  It  is  a  psychological  improba- 
bility that  the  author  of  these  words  can  have  spoken  the 
others  also.  Let  him  who  pronounces  this  criticism  an 
arbitrary  dealing  with  the  text  reflect  that  Luke  is  equally 
arbitrary  in  omitting  the  words  in  question  in  this  connec- 
tion, and  that  Mark  omits  them  altogether.  Let  the 
student,  with  the  alternative  before  him  that  either  these 
words  are  genuine  or  an  interpolation,  decide  which  of  the 
two  suppositions  is  the  more  probable,  that  Jesus  actually 
made  to  his  disciples  a  promise  like  this,  which  has  never 
been  fulfilled,  a  promise  whose  materialism  must  have  ex- 
cited the  most  unspiritual  hopes  and  ambitions  in  their 
breasts,  or  that  the  thought  originated  in  the  apocalyptic 
Messianism  of  the  early  Church,  and  found  expression 
through  the  evangelist  or  the  hand  of  an  interpolator. 

Two  of  the  synoptists  ascribe  an  apocalyptic  saying  to 
Jesus  before  the  High-priest,*  while  a  third,  Luke,  modi- 

*  Matt.  xxvi.  64  ;  Mark  xiv.  62. 


THE   ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  28 1 

fies  it  in  the  interest  of  a  spiritual  apprehension.*  The 
first  evangelist  reports  him  to  have  said  :  "  Henceforth  ye 
will  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power 
and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  Mark  gives  the 
same  words  after  suppressing  the  adverb  "  henceforth  " 
(an*  IxpTi).  But  Luke's  version  is  :  "  From  this  time  the 
Son  of  Man  will  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of 
God."  It  cannot  be  denied,  in  the  first  place,  that  some 
weight  must  be  allowed  to  Volkmar's  remark  that  the 
disciples,  being  absent  from  the  scene  before  the  High- 
priest,  the  words  cannot  be  well  authenticated. f  But 
Weiffenbach's  attempt  to  parry  this  objection  by  observ- 
ing that  "such  a  characteristic  (?)  word,  which  in  the 
Sanhedrim  led  to  the  outbreak  of  fearful  horror  and  to 
the  definitive  sentence  of  death,  could  not  remain  within 
the  four  walls  of  the  hall  of  judgment,  but  must  fly  with 
stormy  force  from  mouth  to  mouth,":):  only  tends  to 
strengthen  it.  A  word  which  flies  as  with  the  wings  of 
the  storm  through  an  excited  multitude  has  small  chance 
of  being  correctly  reported.  One  may,  indeed,  say  with 
Keim  that  Jesus  before  the  Sanhedrim  (High-priest)  may 
have  made  a  confession  "'by  which. he  out  of  the  heart's 
blood  of  his  faith  maintained  the  claims  of  his  Messiah- 
ship  apparently  lying  in  ruins  "  ;  §  but  our  chief  concern 
is  with  determining  what  he  really  said  there.  If,  then, 
the  account  of  the  first  evangelist  represents,  as  it  proba- 
bly does,  the  earliest  form  of  the  tradition,  who  will  not 
choose  to  follow  Luke  in  his  critical  revision  of  it,  since  a 
choice  must  perforce  be  made  between  the  two  records  ? 

*  Luke  xxii.  69.     Luke's  account  is  confused,  the  scene  being  changed 
to  the  "  council." 

f  Die  Evangelien,  oder  Marcus  und  die  Synopsis,  etc.  1870,  p.  588. 
J  Der  Wiederkunftsgedanke  Jesu,  p.  206. 
§  Geschichte  Jesu,  iii.  p.  335. 


282  GOSPEL-  CR1  TIC  ISM. 

In  the  great  eschatological  discourse  recorded  in  Mark 
xiii.,  Matthew  xxiv.,  and  Luke  xxi.  the  application  of  the 
critical  method  in  question  is  indispensable  to  a  rational 
solution  of  the  problems  presented.  The  hypothesis 
appears  to  have  great  probability  in  its  favor  that  in 
Mark  xiii.  5-31  and  parallels  we  have  a  fragment  of  Jew- 
ish-Christian apocalypse  which  was  written  and  in  circula- 
tion shortly  before  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem,  perhaps 
the  very  "  oracle "  to  which  Eusebius  refers  as  inciting 
the  Christians  to  the  flight  to  Pella.*  The  section  is 
evidently  an  interruption  of  the  narrative,  since  the  an- 
swer of  Jesus  to  the  question  of  his  disciples  is  only  given 
at  the  end  of  the  apparent  interpolation.  The  words 
which  the  first  evangelist  preserves.  "  Let  him  that 
readeth  understand,"  belong  to  a  writing,  and  are  mani- 
festly unfitting  in  a  spoken  discourse,  and  "  Pray  that  your 
flight  be  not  on  the  sabbath,"  cannot  have  come  from 
Jesus.f  Eusebius  says  that  the  chief  men  of  the  church 
received  an  oracle  which  commanded  them  to  emigrate. 
If  this  oracle  was  regarded  by  the  Christians  as  having 
come  to  them  "  through  revelation,"  as  Eusebius  says,  its 
incorporation  in  the  record  is  not  difficult  of  explanation. 
If  anywhere  in  the  Gospels  the  apocalyptic-Messianic 
expectations  of  the  early  Christians  have  found  expres- 
sion, it  is  certainly  in  this  section  that  they  exist  in  a 
most  pronounced  form.  All  the  traits  of  apocalyptic 
writings  appear  here,  and  so  evident  are  they  that  even 
Keim,  who  holds  that  Jesus  believed  in  and  explicitly 
taught  his  second  personal  coming  to  the  earth,  finds 
himself  compelled  to  admit  the  apocalyptic  origin  of  these 
words.  \ 

*  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  5.     So  Keim,  Holtzmann,  Weizsacker,  Colani,  Weiffen- 
bach,  Wendt,  and  many  other  critics  of  the  first  rank, 
f  See  Luke  xiii.  15,  xiv.  5. 
\  Geschichte  Jesu,  iii.  199  f. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  283 

To  this  eschatological  discourse  as  recorded  by  Mark 
and  Luke  the  first  evangelist  adds  a  dramatic  scene  of 
general  judgment  which  is  to  be  enacted  "  when  the  Son 
of  Man  shall  come  in  his  glory  and  all  his  angels  with 
him."  *  Then  "  all  nations  "  will  be  gathered  before  him, 
and  he  will  "  separate  men  from  one  another  as  a  shepherd 
separateth  the  sheep  from  the  goats,"  rewarding  and  pun- 
ishing them  according  as  they  shall  have  fed  and  clothed 
and  visited  in  prison  or  neglected  the  least  of  these  his 
brethren,  that  is,  the  Christians.  The  attention  of  the 
critical  reader  of  this  passage  is  first  drawn  by  the  incom- 
patibility which  it  presents  with  some  of  the  other  sayings 
concerning  "  the  last  things "  ascribed  to  Jesus  by  the 
evangelists.  Evidently  this  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man 
must  be  regarded  as  the  same  coming  referred  to  in 
previous  chapters  and  declared  to  be  impending,  to  be 
consummated,  in  fact,  in  the  life-time  of  the  existing 
generation.  Yet  this  judgment  on  "  all  nations,"  this 
world-assize,  presupposes  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel 
to  all  mankind.  If  it  be  a  judgment  on  Christians  only, 
as  some  exegetes  suppose,  they  must  be  gathered  from 
all  nations,  while  if,  according  to  other  interpreters,  it  be 
a  judgment  on  unbelievers  with  reference  to  their  treat- 
ment of  the  "  brethren  "  of  the  judge,  the  existence  of 
Christians  among  all  peoples  is  implied.  The  time-limit 
here  required  is  plainly  far  beyond  the  life  of  the  genera- 
tion living  in  the  time  of  Christ.  One  cannot  but  recall 
here  the  incompatibility  previously  pointed  out  between 
the  declarations  that  the  disciples  shall  not  have  gone 
over  the  cities  of  Israel  before  the  Parousia,  and  that  the 
Gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  nations  before  that  event. 
These  facts  furnish  incontestable  evidence  of  the  modifi- 
cation of  the  eschatological  expectations  of  the  early 

*  Chap.  xxv.  31-46. 


284  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Christians.  They  show,  too,  that  these  expectations  in 
the  form  in  which  they  are  expressed  in  the  synoptic 
Gospels,  with  all  their  fantastic  and  inconsistent  features, 
find  their  most  probable  explanation  in  the  intense  Mes- 
sianic hopes  which  prevailed  among  Jewish  Christians 
when  these  writings  were  composed.  Besides,  the  words 
which  open  the  section  in  question,  and  represent  Jesus  as 
coming  in  his  glory  "  with  the  angels  "  and  sitting"  on  the 
throne  of  his  glory,"  are  not  more  strange  and  improbable 
from  his  lips  than  is  the  doctrine  here  set  forth  of  his 
office  of  judge  of  the  nations.  In  no  other  place  in  the 
synoptic  Gospels  is  he  so  represented,  and  this  passage, 
standing  alone,  as  it  does,  can  hardly  establish  the  doctrine 
as  his.  To  Paul  must  be  charged  this  bold  innovation  in 
Jewish  Messianism,  which  never  recognized  the  Messiah  as 
a  judge.*  How  unfitting,  too,  to  a  delineation  of  a  world- 
assize  is  the  judgment  here  described  which  takes  into 
account  no  conduct  but  that  springing  from  good-will  or 
indifference  towards  the  "  brethren  "  !  A  strange  world- 
judgment,  surely,  is  this  which  consigns  to  age-lasting 
punishment  men  of  "  all  nations "  for  not  visiting  in 
prison,  clothing,  and  feeding  "  the  least  "  of  the  believers, 
and  leaves  out  of  account  all  other  sins  of  omission  or 
commission  !  It  is,  then,  in  the  highest  degree  improba- 
ble that  this  section  in  its  present  form  can  have  come 
from  Christ.  Some  genuine  words  of  his,  such  as  Matt. 
x.  40-42,  may  have  lain  at  the  basis  of  it,  or  it  may  origi- 
nally have  been  a  parable  which  later  received  this 
apocalyptic  form  and  coloring. 

Serious  and  insuperable  objections  lie  against  all  other 
explanations  than  the  one  here  proposed  of  the  eschato- 

*  I.  Cor.  iv.  5.     Here  the  judgment  follows  the  return  of  Christ,  eao$  av 
6  KvpioS.     See  also  II.  Cor.  v.  10. 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  28$ 

logical  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  the  synoptic  Gospels. 
The  most  of  these  explanations  proceed  upon  the  pre- 
sumption that  he  has  been  correctly  quoted,  a  presumption 
which  a  critical  comparison  of  the  records  shows  to  be 
unfounded.  The  doctrine  that  Jesus  employed  the  ex- 
travagant language  in  question  to  indicate  his  spiritual 
coming  and  presence  in  his  church,*  involves  the  con- 
clusion that  he  used  words  to  which  his  disciples  must 
have  given  a  sensuous  interpretation,  words,  in  fact,  which 
could  not  but  be  misleading.  This  explanation  proceeds 
from  a  dogmatic  interest,  and  has  nothing  to  commend  it 
to  a  sound  hermeneutical  judgment.  One  might  with 
equal  propriety  maintain  that  the  account  of  the  marvel- 
lous Messianic  vineyards  recorded  by  Papias  may  fairly 
be  in  like  manner  "  spiritualized."  But  happily  this  did 
not  make  its  way  into  the  Gospels,  and  has  accordingly 
been  spared  such  a  hermeneutical  treatment.  The  popu- 
lar orthodox  interpretation  which  finds  in  the  language 
under  consideration  a  prophecy  of  the  coming  of  Christ 
in  a  future  general  judgment  and  catastrophic  "  end  of 
the  world,"  f  is  untenable  in  view  of  the  explicit  and 
repeated  statement  that  the  generation  then  living  would 
see  the  Parousia. 

That  Jesus  put  forth  no  claim  to  the  Messiahship  in  any 
sense  appears  to  be  the  view  defended  with  great  force 
and  acumen  by  Martineau,^:  who  urges  with  good  reasons 
that  in  the  eschatological  discourses  the  term  "  Son  of 
Man,"  evidently  employed  in  the  Jewish-Messianic  sense, 
expresses  an  afterthought  of  the  evangelists,  and  not  a 
conception  of  Jesus  himself.  In  interpreting  the  scene  at 

*  Immer,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  1877,  p.  143  f. 
f  Dorner,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  1885,  iv.  p.  87. 
\  The  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  pp.  326-358. 


286  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Caesarea  Philippi,  however,  Martineau  repudiates,  without 
giving  a  reason  for  doing  so,  the  report  of  the  first  evange- 
list that  Jesus  explicitly  accepted  the  appellation  "  Christ," 
or  "  Messiah,"  with  the  declaration  that  Peter's  insight 
was  by  a  revelation  of  God,  and  regards  the  result  of  the 
great  episode  as  a  "  disclaimer  "  on  the  part  of  Jesus  of  all 
Messianic  pretensions.  A  disclaimer  of  the  Messiahship 
in  the  popular,  Jewish  sense,  probably  also  in  Peter's 
sense,  who  had  spoken  better  than  he  knew,  there  cer- 
tainly was  in  Jesus'  rebuke  of  the  solicitude  which  could 
not  tolerate  a  suffering  Messiah.  But  the  injunction  of 
silence  does  not  justify  the  conclusion  that  he  did  not 
assume  in  any  sense  a  Messianic  mission  to  his  nation,  and 
regarded  the  Messiahship  as  "  ^private  prerogative  which 
could  be  clandestinely  held."  Evidently  nothing  could 
have  been  more  repugnant  to  Jesus,  nothing  more  impru- 
dent, than  to  suffer  this  inflammatory  word  "  Messiah  " 
to  be  thrown  out  upon  the  common  air,  changed  from  the 
esoteric,  spiritual  meaning  in  which  he  held  it,  and  per- 
verted to  a  revolutionary  watch-word.  While  perhaps  the 
critical  study  of  the  original  evangelic  tradition  shows  that 
Jesus  made  no  announcement  of  himself  as  Messiah  prior 
to  the  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  then  reservedly  and 
not  at  all  as  the  expected  Son  of  David,  there  appears  to 
be  a  very  decided  implication  of  a  Messianic  mission  in 
the  frequent  declarations  that  with  him  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  was  ushered  in.  The  sense  in  which  he  employed 
this  Messianic  term  is  clear  to  us,  though  it  was  veiled  to 
his  disciples.  His  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  It  is 
open  to  grave  question,  then,  whether  the  theory  under 
consideration  does  not  tend  to  invalidate  a  central  and 
well-authenticated  portion  of  the  tradition  of  Jesus. 

There  remains  to  be  considered  the  theory  that  Jesus 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS.  287 

spoke  touching  his  return  to  the  earth  essentially  in  the 
terms  of  the  records,  and  thereby  expressed  his  own  ex- 
pectation of  an  actual,  personal  Parousia  to  be  early 
realized  for  the  consummation  of  his  mission  in  the  found- 
ing of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  "  As  death  without  revival 
was  a  downright  burial  of  his  Messiahship,  so  life  without 
return  abolished  upon  the  earth  his  Messianic  work,  the 
world-kingdom,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  says  Keim.* 
From  this  point  of  view  the  expectation  of  a  personal 
Parousia  was  incidental  to  the  humanity  of  Jesus.  "  There 
is  nothing  more  certain  than  that  on  the  ground  of  a 
human  consciousness  he  could  find  only  this  adjustment 
and  no  other,  if  he  bound  the  salvation  of  the  world  not 
alone  to  the  spiritual  truths  which  he  announced,  but  also 
to  his  person  and  to  the  Messiahship,  his  Messiahship,  and 
that  on  the  same  human  ground  especially  the  catastrophe 
of  Jerusalem  must  appear  in  general  as  the  limit  at  which 
his  Messiahship  should  attain  to  honor  and  power  upon 
the  earth."  f  It  is  evident  that  the  self-deception  of  Jesus, 
perhaps  even  his  fanaticism  and  folly,  cannot  but  be  im- 
plied in  this  hypothesis.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  in 
view  of  the  results  of  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels,  that  it 
is  idle  to  maintain  this  theory  on  the  ground  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  synoptists  to  the  sayings  in  question,  when 
the  variations  and  inconsistencies  of  that  testimony  are 
taken  into  account.  Ineffectual,  too,  it  is  to  urge  that  if 
we  discredit  these  eschatological,  apocalyptical  sayings 
ascribed  to  Jesus  we  invalidate  the  entire  record.  For 
the  dilemma  in  which  we  are  placed  is  either  to  conclude 
that  the  synoptists  have  misrepresented  Jesus  by  giving 
to  his  words  the  coloring  of  the  Messianic  expectations 
of  their  time,  or  that  he  in  the  most  solemn  terms  prophe- 

*  Geschichte  Jesu,  iii.  p.  566.  \  Ib.  p.  219. 


288  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

sied  a  coming  on  the  clouds  with  a  retinue  of  angels,  and 
was,  accordingly,  a  self-deceived  apocalyptist.  That  he 
should  have  believed  that  his  mission  could  only  be 
accomplished  by  founding  a  "  world-kingdom  "  and  pre- 
siding in  person  over  it,  is  in  most  flagrant  contradiction 
to  his  spirit  and  aim  as  made  known  in  words  of  his  which 
have  the  unmistakable  stamp  of  genuineness.  It  is  a 
doubtful  confirmation  of  the  Gospel  as  a  whole  to  estab- 
lish the  correctness  of  the  record  at  the  expense  of  the 
trustworthiness  of  Jesus.  By  this  sort  of  criticism  criticism 
itself  is  dissolved. 

If,  now,  it  results  from  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels 
that  Jesus  left  to  mankind  no  word  respecting  a  second 
coming  in  person  to  take  .place  either  in  the  first  century 
or  at  a  remote  "  end  of  the  world  "  ;  that  he  taught  noth- 
ing concerning  a  general  judgment  and  a  dramatic  scene 
of  a  separation  of  men  from  one  another  "  as  a  shepherd 
separates  the  sheep  from  the  goats  "  ;  that  he  rather  left 
the  consequences  of  human  conduct  to  be  inferred  from 
the  general  principles  of  his  teaching  than  depicted  them 
by  means  of  apocalyptic  imagery  ;  that,  in  a  word,  his 
real  Gospel,  when  freed  from  Jewish-Christian  accretions, 
is  not  at  all  a  Book  of  Revelation  disclosing  celestial  ar- 
cana, then  is  not  the  loss  great  in  losing  all  that  we  lose 
by  this  critical  sifting,  unless  it  be  for  those  who  in 
religion  "  want  the  materialism  of  the  apocalypse,"  and 
while  "  gazing  up  into  heaven  "  miss  the  earthly  foot- 
prints of  the  Master. 

In  accordance  with  the  "  spiritual "  point  of  view  of 
the  fourth  Gospel,  we  should  expect  to  find  in  it  an  escha- 
tology  different  in  important  particulars  from  that  of  the 
synoptics.  While  the  doctrine  of  a  visible  return  of 
Jesus  to  the  earth  was  well  adapted  to  the  materialistic 


THE   ESCHATOLOGY   OF    THE   GOSPELS.  289 

popular  conception,  it  evidently  maintained  itself  with 
difficulty.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  first  Gospel  it  is  to 
take  place  "  immediately"  after  the  judgment  on  Jerusa- 
lem. In  Mark  the  determination  is  not  so  definite,  and 
Luke  inserts  the  indefinite  period  of  the  "  times  of  the 
gentiles."  At  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  probably  in  the  last  half  of  the  second 
century,  the  writer  of  it  finds  "  scoffers  "  who  ask  "  when 
is  the  promise  of  his  coming?  "  and  consoles  himself  with 
the  thought  that  "  one  day  with  the  Lord  is  as  a  thou- 
sand years."  Some  traces  of  the  persistent  popular  no- 
tion remain  even  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  We  find  here  a 
"  last  day  "  of  resurrection  both  for  those  who  have  done 
good  and  those  who  have  done  evil.*  Many  mansions 
are  to  be  prepared,  and  Jesus  will  come  to  receive  the 
disciples  to  himself,  f  The  prominent  and  peculiar  escha- 
tological  feature  of  the  Gospel  is,  however,  a  spiritualiza- 
tion  of  the  Parousia  and  the  judgment.  All  sensuous 
traits  of  a  second  coming  are  banished  in  favor  of  a  spir- 
itual presence.  The  judgment  is  "  now,"  and  the  con- 
demnation of  men  is  in  their  rejection  of  the  "light" 
that  has  already  come  into  the  world.;):  The  true  judg- 
ment is  the  separation  between  those  who  love  the 
light  and  come  to  it,  and  those  who  hate  the  light  and 
remain  in  darkness.  He  who  believes  in  the  Son  is  not 
judged,  but  he  who  does  not  believe  is  judged  already. 
Eternal  life  is  attainable  here  and  now,  for  he  that  be- 
lieveth  hath  it,  while  on  the  unbeliever  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth.  He  who  thus  -passes  from  death  into  life  has 
experienced  the  real  resurrection,  which  is  a  spiritual 
transformation.  They  who  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man  and  drink  his  blood  have  eternal  life.  To  them 

*  Chap.  v.  29.  f  Chap.  xiv.  3,  18,  28.  \  Chap.  iii.  19. 

19 


GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

he  is  the  resurrection  and  the  life.  The  doctrine  that 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  passes  over  in  this  Gospel 
into  that  of  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  send- 
ing of  the  Paraclete,  who  should  lead  the  disciples  into 
all  truth,  and  bring  to  their  remembrance  all  things  that 
Jesus  had  taught  them,  has  the  weight  of  Hausrath's 
authority  in  its  favor,  who  finds  in  the  thought  of  the 
evangelist  an  identification  of  Christ  and  the  Paraclete.* 
Oscar  Holtzmann  sees  in  this  identification  a  reproduc- 
tion of  a  Philonic  doctrine,  and  the  dependence,  accord- 
ingly, of  the  fourth  Gospel  upon  the  Alexandrian 
philosophy.f 

*  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgesch.  iii.  p.  579. 
f  Das  Johannesevangelium,  1887,  p.  78. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

DOGMATIC   "  TENDENCIES  "    IN   THE   GOSPELS. 

MR.  MATTHEW  ARNOLD'S  genial  criticism  of 
the  theories  of  "  vigor  and  rigor  "  has  exposed 
some  of  the  excesses  committed  by  Baur  and  his  followers 
in  supporting  the  hypothesis  of  doctrinal  "  tendencies  "  in 
the  writers  of  the  Gospels.  To  the  celebrated  Tubingen 
critic  and  many  of  the  adherents  of  his  school,  the  Gospels 
were  pre-eminently  tendency-writings.*  Their  writers  were 
advocates.  They  had  taken  sides  with  reference  to  the 
great  question  which  is  supposed  to  have  been  agitated 
in  their  time  ;  they  were  friendly  or  hostile  to  the  Pauline 
doctrine,  and  wrote  the  Gospels  to  support  their  individ- 
ual partisan  convictions.  We  have  already  seen  to  what 
extremes  this  theory  was  carried  in  the  Tubingen  criti- 
cisms of  the  fourth  Gospel,  a  considerable  part  of  which 
the  exigencies  of  it  required  to  be  regarded  as  inventions 
in  the  interest  of  a  preconceived  doctrine.  In  the  place 
of  downright  invention  this  criticism  sometimes  assumed, 
however,  a  modification  and  arrangement  of  the  materials 
of  tradition  by  the  evangelists  in  order  to  subserve  a 
dogmatic  purpose.  It  may  well  be  conceded  to  Mr. 
Arnold,  and  maintained  in  the  name  of  sane  criticism, 
that  many  of  the  procedures  of  these  learned  scholars  are 
very  questionable  ;  that  they  suppose  in  the  evangelists  a 
finesse  which  they  in  all  probability  did  not  possess  ;  and 

*  Tendenz-Schriften. 
291 


GOSPEL-CXITICISM. 

that  they  require  conclusions  of  vast  import  to  be  drawn 
from  very  slender  premises.  Of  this  sort  is  the  "  ingenious 
conjecture  "  of  Schwegler  made  in  support  of  the  theory 
that  the  third  Gospel  was  written  in  the  interest  of  the 
Pauline  or  gentile-Christian  view  of  Christianity,  that  the 
impenitent  and  penitent  thieves  who  were  crucified  with 
Jesus  were  intended  to  represent,  respectively  the  Jews 
and  the  gentiles,  the  former  rejecting,  the  latter  accepting 
Christ.  If,  however,  there  is  in  this  account  a  tendency 
or  a  conscious  intention  of  the  writer,  one  can  hardly  de- 
cide which  is  the  more  to  be  admired,  the  skill  of  the 
evangelist  in  concealing  it  or  the  ingenuity  of  the  German 
critic  in  discovering  it.  In  the  same  Gospel  it  is  related 
that  Peter  fishes  all  night  and  catches  nothing,  but  when 
at  the  command  of  Jesus  the  net  is  once  more  let  down, 
a  great  multitude  of  fishes  is  caught,  and  the  net  breaks. 
Volkmar  discovers  that  in  this  narrative  the  writer  meant 
to  contrast  the  barren  result  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to 
the  Jews  with  the  fruitful  result  of  preaching  it  to  the 
gentiles.*  But  the  surprising  ingenuity  which  could 
make  this  discovery  is  surpassed  by  that  which  finds  the 
more  advanced  Paulinism  of  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  proved  by  the  fact  that  in  his  account  of  the 
same  miracle,  which  he  places  after  the  resurrection,  he 
declares  that  the  net  was  not  broken,  and  thereby  indi- 
cates that  the  heathen  may  be  brought  in  "  without  any 
such  disruption  of  the  church  as  to  his  faint-hearted  pre- 
decessor had  seemed  inevitable  "  !  The  fourth  evangelist's 
mention  of  only  one  boat  engaged  in  this  fishing  instead 
of  the  two  of  the  third  Gospel  is,  again,  an  intimation 

*  This  strange  fancy  appears  to  have  been  adopted  by  J.  Estlin  Carpenter 
in  The  First  Three  Gospels,  their  Origin  and  Relations,  second  edition, 
London,  1890,  p.  330. 


DOGMATIC  "  TENDENCIES"   IN  THE  GOSPELS.     293 

that  the  co-existence  of  a  Jewish  and  gentile  Christianity 
is  no  longer  satisfactory  to  the  religious  consciousness 
which  now  demands  a  catholic  church,  one  and  indi- 
visible ! 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  neither  the  extreme  state- 
ment of  a  theory  nor  extravagances  committed  in  its 
defence  do  by  any  means  invalidate  the  essentials  of  the 
theory  itself.  A  fair  test  of  the  tendency-doctrine,  accord- 
ingly, requires  an  examination  of  the  Gospels  in  some 
detail  with  reference  to  its  assumptions.  We  may  well 
begin,  then,  with  the  first  Gospel,  which  is  regarded  by 
the  Tubingen  school  as  originally  written  in  the  interest 
of  Jewish  Christianity  and  with  intentional  opposition  to 
the  Pauline  doctrine.  It  cannot,  indeed,  be  denied  that 
the  Gospel  contains  some  passages  which,  taken  by  them- 
selves, appear  to  favor  this  theory.  Among  these  may  be 
mentioned  the  declarations  ascribed  to  Jesus  that  he  came 
not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil,  the  law ;  that  in  his  coming 
again  with  the  angels  he  will  "  reward  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  works,"  in  assumed  opposition  to  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith ;  that  if  one  will  enter  into 
life  one  must  "  keep  the  commandments";  and  that  the 
disciples  ought  to  do  whatsoever  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
enjoin.*  The  deprecation  of  a  flight  from  Jerusalem  on 
the  Sabbath  also  appears  to  represent  the  Jewish  super- 
stitious reverence  for  that  day.f  The  injunction  not  to 
give  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs  might  be  regarded  as 
a  thrust  at  Paulinism  if  any  support  could  be  made  appar- 
ent for  Hilgenfeld's  gratuitous  reference  of  "  dogs  "  to  the 
gentiles.^:  In  the  sending  out  of  the  apostles  the  injunc- 

*  Chap.  v.  17  f.,  xvi.  27.  xix.  17,  xxiii.  2  f. 

f  Chap.  xxiv.  20. 

$  Chap.  vii.  6  ;   Hilgenfeid,  Die  Evangelien,  p.  114. 


294  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

tion  is  given  to  them  not  to  "  go  into  the  way  of  the  gen- 
tiles," but  rather  "  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel," 
and  it  is  declared  that  the  consummation  of  all  things 
will  come  before  they  will  have  gone  over  the  cities  of 
Israel,  thus  apparently  excluding  a  ministry  to  the  gentiles.* 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Gospel  contains  many  passages 
which  an  interpreter  interested  in  detecting  in  it  a  Pauline 
"tendency"  would  find  favorable  to  his  theory.  Jesus  is 
made  to  declare,  for  example,  that  one  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  unless  one's  righteousness  exceed 
that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  in  connection  with 
this  anti-Jewish  saying  he  announces  strikingly  liberal 
modifications  of  the  teachings  of  those  "  of  old  time."  f 
The  spiritualizing  of  the  law  to  the  extent  of  declaring  all 
its  requirements  to  be  fulfilled  by  doing  as  we  would  be 
done  by  indicates  rather  a  tendency  to  Paulinism  than  to 
Judaism.  A  similar  tendency  appears  in  the  disparage- 
ment of  external  forms  in  the  explanation  of  the  parable 
concerning  defilement,  "To  eat  with  unwashed  hands 
defileth  not  a  man,"  and  in  the  declaration  that  on  the 
two  great  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  proph- 
ets.;): The  prophecy  that  many  will  come  from  the  East 
and  the  West,  and  sit  down  in  the  kingdom,  while  the 
children  of  the  kingdom  will  be  cast  into  outer  darkness,§ 
shows  certainly  no  leaning  to  Judaism,  and  scarcely  leaves 
room  for  so  much  hope  for  the  chosen  people  as  Paul 
expressed  more  than  once.  In  a  similar  vein  are  the 
declaration  that  before  "  the  end  come  "  "  the  Gospel  will 
be  preached  in  all  the  world  for  a  witness  unto  all 
nations,"  and  the  commission  to  the  disciples  to  go  out 
and  teach  all  nations.  ||  The  refusal  by  Jesus  of  the  re- 

*  Chap.  x.  5  f.  f  Chap.  v.  20  f.  \  Chap.  xv.  20,  xxii.  40. 

§  Chap.  viii.  n,  12.      jChap.  xxiv.  14  (see  also  xxvi.  13),  xxviii.  19. 


DOGMATIC  "TENDENCIES"   IN  THE   GOSPELS.       295 

quest  of  the  woman  of  Canaan  on  the  ground  that  he 
was  sent  only  "  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel " 
has,  indeed,  an  anti-Pauline  appearance,  but  is  neutralized 
by  his  final  granting  of  the  petition.*  The  Messianic  title, 
"  Son  of  David  "  is,  indeed,  much  more  frequently  applied 
to  Jesus  in  this  Gospel  than  in  the  others,  but  only  as  the 
popular  designation. f  On  the  occasion  of  the  triumphal 
entry  into  Jerusalem  Jesus  is  hailed  by  the  multitude  as 
the  Son  of  David,  and  appears  to  acknowledge  the  title, 
and  thereby  to  place  himself  at  the  Jewish  point  of  view.  J 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  scene  is  an  integral  part 
of  the  Gospel,  and  the  problem  presented  is  whether  or 
not  it  was  enacted  as  recorded  in  this  Gospel.  The  fact 
that  Jesus  argued  from  one  of  the  Psalms  to  prove  that 
the  Messiah  could  not  be  the  son  of  David  §  renders  his 
acceptance  of  the  title  on  this  occasion  very  doubtful. 
Baur,  accordingly,  thinks  that  the  scene  of  the  entrance 
into  Jerusalem  as  here  recorded  is  one  of  the  problematical 
events  of  the  Gospel-history,  since  it  is  as  easily  explicable 
how  such  a  narrative  might  arise  out  of  the  Jewish-Messi- 
anic idea  as  the  assumption  is  difficult  that  the  thing  can 
have  occurred  as  here  related.  ||  The  fact  that  the  first 
evangelist  accepted  either  intentionally  or  without  objec- 
tion the  tradition  with  this  cry  of  "  Son  of  David"  which 
Luke  omits  may  indicate  a  Jewish-Christian  tendency,  or 
may  be  put  to  the  account  of  mere  naivete.  That  the  first 
Gospel  as  a  whole  does  not  appear  to  be  the  work  of  a 
partisan  in  the  Pauline  controversy  is  evident  from  the 
foregoing  review  of  texts  in  which  two  tendencies  are 
strongly  represented.  Hilgenfeld  accordingly  maintains 

*  Chap.  xv.  24.  \  Chap.  xxi. 

f  Chap.  ix.  27,  xii.  23,  xv.  22,  xx.  30,  31,  xxi.  9,  15.     §  Chap,  xxii.,  41-45. 
||  Kritische  Untersuchungen,  etc.,  p.  611. 


296  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

with  much  acumen  that  the  original  form  of  the  Gospel 
was  of  the  Judaistic  tendency,  and  that  the  Pauline  pas- 
sages were  added  by  a  reviser.*  But  it  is  very  improbable 
that  a  Pauline  reviser,  who  can  have  had  no  scruples  at 
taking  liberties  with  the  text,  would  have  left  the  passages 
standing  in  his  revised  edition  which  are  as  decidedly  anti- 
Pauline  as  his  supposed  additions  and  modifications  are 
Pauline.  Baur,  whose  intellectual  greatness  and  rare  criti- 
cal discrimination  saved  him  from  many  of  the  vagaries 
into  which  some  of  his  disciples  have  fallen,  acknowledges 
that  since  the  Gospel  in  many  passages  indubitably  bears 
testimony  to  the  universality  of  Christianity,  one  cannot 
charge  it  with  representing  a  limited  Judaism.  The  anxi- 
ety, he  adds,  with  which  the  other  Gospels,  in  order  not 
to  concede  too  much  to  Judaism,  have  omitted  or  changed 
certain  passages  is  a  far  more  distinguishing  criterion 
of  a  definite  tendency-character  than  the  naivete"  with 
which  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel  has  taken  them  up 
from  the  tradition,  and  left  them  standing  by  the  side  of 
others  which  apparently  contradict  them. 

That  the  first  Gospel,  however,  represents  the  Jewish- 
Christian  conception  of  the  Gospel-history  can  hardly  be 
denied  by  any  unbiassed  student  of  it.  In  this  respect  it 
has  a  "  tendency,"  and  is,  in  the  phraseology  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  a  "  tendency-writing."  This  concession 
does  not  at  all,  however,  carry  with  it  the  conclusion  that 
the  tendency  in  question  is  of  such  a  nature  as  seriously 
to  affect  the  plan  and  composition  of  the  writing  and  sub- 
vert its  historical  credibility,  however  much  this  may  be 
prejudiced  by  it.  The  type  of  Gospel-writing  which  we 
have  in  this  record  is  a  natural  and  necessary  result  of  the 
historical  connection  of  Christianity  with  Judaism.  Jesus 
*Dic  Evangelien,  pp.  100-120.  See  Eaur,  ut  supra. 


DOGMATIC  "TENDENCIES"   IN  THE   GOSPELS.      297 

declared,  indeed,  that  he  came  not  to  annul  the  law  and 
the  prophets,  and  this  artless  record  of  his  teachings  and 
ministry  shows  only  too  well  that  he  did  not  in  fact  destroy 
them,  and  reveals  with  what  tenacity  the  most  tenacious  of 
religious  beliefs  held  his  divine  word  in  its  inflexible  grasp. 
The  law  and  the  prophets  constitute  without  doubt  the 
point  of  view  from  which  the  writer  of  this  Gospel  regards 
the  mission  of  Jesus  and  the  evangelic  tradition.  The 
Old  Testament  is  his  point  of  departure.  He  finds  that 
the  Gospel  was  contained  in  it  from  the  beginning,  and 
makes  it  no  small  part  of  his  task  as  an  evangelist  to  show 
how  the  former  may  be  explained  out  of  the  latter.  The 
frequent  reference  to  the  Old  Testament  and  the  applica- 
tion of  passages  from  it  to  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
constitute  a  peculiarity  of  this  writer  which  has  given  rise  to 
the  remark  that  one  does  not  sometimes  know  whether  the 
history  is  there  for  the  sake  of  the  citation  or  the  citation 
for  the  sake  of  the  history.  Throughout  the  Gospel,  and 
particularly  in  the  first  two  chapters,  the  tendency  is  man- 
ifest to  find  in  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus  the  fulfilment 
of  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  Jesus  is  born  of  a 
virgin,  and  "  all  this  took  place  in  order  that  it  might  be 
fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the 
prophet."  *  He  was  born  in  Bethlehem  according  to  a 
prophecy,  and  the  flight  into  Egypt  took  place  in  order 
to  fulfil  a  word  of  Hosea.f  In  the  slaughter  of  the  chil- 
dren by  order  of  Herod  a  saying  of  Jeremiah  found  its 
fulfilment,  £  and  when  the  parents  of  Jesus  on  their  return 
from  Egypt  take  up  their  residence  in  Nazareth  with  the 


*  'ivnt  TtXrjpGoQy  TO  prjQer,  nrA.,  cf.  Is.  vii.  14. 
f  Chap.  ii.  6,  cf.  Micah  v.  2  ;  chap.  ii.  15,  cf.  Hosea  xi.  i. 
\  Chap.  ii.  1  8,  cf.  Jer.  xxxi.    15.     For  a  discussion  of  these  quotations 
from  a  hermeneutical  point  of  view  see  the  next  chapter. 


298  GOSPEL-CKITICISM. 

child,  this  also  happened  in  order  that  a  prophecy  might 
be  fulfilled,  which  said  that  he  should  be  called  a  Naza- 
rene.*  John  the  Baptist  is  "  the  voice  of  one  crying  in 
the  wilderness,"  spoken  of  "  through  Isaiah  the  prophet." 
When  Jesus  dwells  for  a  time  in  Capernaum  "  in  the  bor- 
ders of  Zebulon  and  Naphtali,"  it  is  that  a  saying  of  Isaiah 
"  might  be  fulfilled."  f  This  "  pragmatism  "  dominates  the 
evangelist's  entire  conception  of  the  history,  so  that  he 
appears  unable  to  regard  any  act  or  experience  of  Jesus 
otherwise  than  from  the  point  of  view  of  prophetic  an- 
nouncement and  fulfilment.  No  sooner  does  he  begin  to 
relate  the  healing  of  the  sick  and  the  casting  out  of  demons 
by  Jesus  than  he  "  pragmatizes  "  about  these  works  by 
declaring  that  they  are  done  "  in  order  that  "  what  Isaiah 
had  foretold  might  come  to  pass  ;  and  even  Jesus'  direc- 
tion to  those  whom  he  had  healed  not  to  make  him  known 
is  said  to  be  given  for  the  same  reason.  J  The  parabolic 
method  of  teaching  is  employed  by  Jesus  in  order  to  fulfil 
a  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  and  the  people  who  are  slow  of 
heart,  and  hearing  hear  not,  also  have  a  share  in  the  fulfil- 
ment, whose  monotonous  recurrence  betrays  the  persistent 
predilection  of  the  writer.  §  Not  only  are  the  Pharisees 
denounced  as  hypocrites,  but  they  were  prophesied  of  by 
Isaiah.  ||  The  preparations  for  the  triumphal  entrance 
into  Jerusalem  are  made  in  order  to  fulfil  a  prophetic  word 
of  Jeremiah,  and  the  shouting  multitude  proclaim  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  in  the  words  of  a  Psalm. 1"  In  the 
histoiy  of  the  passion  it  is  declared  that  the  disciples  will 

*  Chap.  ii.  23. 

f  Chap.  iii.  3,  cf.  Is.  xl.  3  ;    chap.  iv.  14,  cf.  Is.  ix.  i,  2. 
\  Chap.  viii.  17,  cf.  Is.  liii.  4  ;  chap.  xii.  18,  cf.  Is.  xlii.  1-4. 
§  Chap.  xiii.  14,  35,  cf.  Is.  vi.  9,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2. 
|  Chap.  xv.  8,  cf.  Is.  xxix.  13. 
^[  Chap.  xxi.  4,  5,  cf.  Zech.  ix.  9  ;  chap.  xxi.  9. 


DOGMATIC  "TENDENCIES"   IN  THE   GOSPELS.      299 

forsake  Jesus,  "  for  it  is  written,  I  will  smite  the  shepherd, 
and  the  sheep  of  the  flock  shall  be  scattered."  *  When 
the  chief  priests  bought  a  potter's  field  with  Judas'  thirty 
pieces  of  silver,  "  that  was  fulfilled,"  we  are  told,  "  which 
was  spoken  by  Jeremiah  the  prophet."  f 

Without  entering  here  upon  a  discussion  of  the  her- 
meneutical  method  according  to  which  these  Old-Testa- 
ment passages  receive  the  application  which  the  writer  of 
the  Gospel  makes  of  them,  it  is  evident  that  the  weari- 
some citation  betrays  a  tendency  to  "  Judaize  "  which, 
while  not  peculiar  to  him,  is  his  marked  characteristic  in 
comparison  with  the  other  evangelists.  It  is  difficult  to 
believe,  in  view  of  this  unquestionable  tendency,  that  he 
wrote  with  no  other  object  than  to  set  forth  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus.  Rather  the  evidences  of  an  ulterior 
design  are  as  unmistakable  as  that  design  itself  is  prob- 
able. We  have  already  seen  how  hard  it  was  for  Jews 
to  believe  in  a  Messiah  who  had  not  fulfilled  the  national 
Messianic  expectations,  and  how  Paul  found  it  necessary 
to  argue  vigorously  against  this  prejudice  of  his  country- 
men. Now  a  Jewish  writer,  whether  apostle  or  evangelist, 
could  not  leave  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  standing 
by  themselves  as  sole  and  sufficient  evidences  of  his  Mes- 
siahship,  but  thought  it  necessary  in  writing  for  Jews  to 
appeal  to  the  only  holy  Scriptures  acknowledged  by  him- 
self and  his  readers,  the  Old  Testament.  No  other  evidence 
lay  so  near  his  hand  ;  and  not  to  employ  it  would  have 
been  un-Jewish,  unnatural.  But  to  use  it  liberally,  even 
if  somewhat  soberly  in  comparison  with  some  of  the  un- 
canonical  early  writers,  to  press  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
interest  of  the  demonstration  in  question  is  precisely  the 

*  Chap.  xxvi.  31,  cf.  Zech.  xiii.  7. 
•(•Chap,  xxvii.  9,  cf.  Jer.  xviii.  i,  2,  Zech.  >a.  12,  13. 


300  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

sort  of  proceeding  which  a  true  historical  divination  would 
look  for  in  a  writer  like  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel. 
For  historical  divination  expects  a  writer  to  reflect  the 
prepossessions  of  his  age  and  to  write  from  its  point  of 
view.  When  it  does  not  find  him  altogether  doing  so  it 
rightly  assumes  some  influence  of  an  environment,  and 
proceeds  to  inquire  of  what  nature  it  was.  The  critical 
and  historical  judgment  cannot,  then,  approve  any  other 
method  of  interpretation  than  that  known  as  the  histori- 
cal, and  is  offended  by  a  hermeneutical  procedure  which 
goes  upon  the  presumption  that  a  Jewish-Christian  writer, 
living  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century,  could  at  all 
view  the  life  of  Jesus  much  as  a  Christian  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  views  it.  Although  criticism  may  be 
obliged  to  leave  without  an  entirely  satisfactory  solution 
the  problem  which  is  presented  by  the  appearance,  side 
by  side,  of  Pauline  and  anti-Pauline  elements  in  the  first 
Gospel,  it  cannot  at  all  be  in  doubt  that  this  is  in  a  very 
real  sense  a  "  tendency-writing,"  conceived  and  executed  in 
the  interest  of  establishing  for  Jews  the  Jewish-Christian 
Messianic  office  of  Jesus.  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
eschatological  portions  of  the  Gospel  find  their  most 
probable  explanation  in  the  Messianic  expectations  of  the 
writer  and  his  contemporaries,  and  if  the  tendency  in 
question  is  such  as  is  a  priori  to  be  expected,  it  appears 
to  be  established  by  reason  as  well  as  by  the  evidence 
furnished  by  the  texts  which  have  been  quoted. 

Since  the  second  Gospel  offers  little  that  calls  for  con- 
sideration under  the  title  of  this  chapter,  and  the  tendency 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  already  been  pointed  out  in 
Chapter  VII.,  there  remains  only  the  third  Gospel  to  be 
studied  with  reference  to  the  matter  in  question.  Men- 
tion has  already  been  made  in  Chapter  VI.  of  the  recog- 


DOGMATIC  "TENDENCIES"   IN  THE   GOSPELS.      30! 

nition  by  early  traditions  of  the  Pauline  character  of  this 
Gospel,  and  if  we  accept  the  principle  with  regard  to 
tradition  that  "  it  is  something  in  a  thing's  favor  that 
men  have  delivered  it,"  we  shall  have  the  presumption 
to  begin  with  that  in  studying  Luke  we  have  to  do  with 
a  writing  which  has  a  tendency  more  or  less  unequivocal. 
It  is  very  much  in  favor  of  this  tradition,  in  the  first  place, 
that  modern  criticism  since  Gieseler  has  confirmed  it  so 
far  as  the  character  of  the  Gospel  as  a  whole  is  concerned, 
though  reaching  quite  different  conclusions  in  some  mat- 
ters of  detail.  Extreme  defenders  of  the  tradition,  on  the 
one  hand,  have  argued  for  a  direct  or  indirect  share  of 
Paul  in  the  writing  of  the  Gospel.*  The  so-called  "  broad 
centre  "  of  theology  finds  in  Luke  a  modification  of  the 
common  material  of  the  history  conditioned  by  Pauline 
traditions  and  points  of  view.f  According  to  the  Tubin- 
gen school  the  Gospel  is  a  blending  of  Pauline  and  Jewish- 
Christian  elements  in  a  conciliatory  manner,  indeed,  but 
essentially  in  the  interest  of  a  moderate  Paulinism.  £  Some 
of  the  critics  of  this  school,  however,  show  not  a  little 
favor  to  the  extreme  theory  of  the  Saxon  Anonymous  § 
in  regarding  the  Gospel  as  a  thoroughly  Pauline  partisan 
writing,  which  expresses  hatred  for  the  Jews,  satirizes 
Peter,  etc.||  Finally,  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  reduce 
to  a  minimum  or  entirely  to  dissipate  the  Paulinism  of 
the  Gospel,  ^f 

*  Thiersch,  Aberle,  Godet,  and  H.  H.  Evans. 

f  Bleek-Mangold,  Holtzmann,  Schanz,  Schenkel,  Weiss,  and  others. 
Kenan's  point  of  view  is  essentially  the  same. 

\  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Keim,  Overbeck,  Hausrath,  Holsten,  Pfleiderer,  and 
others. 

§  Die  Evangelien,  ihr  Geist,  ihre  Verfasser,  und  ihr  Verhaltniss  zu  einan- 
der,  etc.  2te  Ausg.  1852. 

|  Hasert  and  Volkmar,  the  latter  more  moderate. 

Tf  Schwanbeck,  Reuss,  Ritschl. 


302  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

It  is  certainly  fair  to  judge  this  Gospel  as  to  the  matter 
in  question  by  the  explicit  statement  which  the  writer 
makes  of  his  object  in  the  introduction.  Here  he  says 
that  he  writes  for  the  instruction  of  Theophilus  as  to  the 
"  exact  truth  "  in  regard  to  those  things  in  which  he  had 
been  instructed.  Now  as  Theophilus  was  doubtless  a 
Greek-Christian,  and  as  history  brings  Luke  into  relation 
with  Paul,  the  presumption  $f  a  Pauline  point  of  view  in 
the  Gospel  appears  to  have  at  least  probability  in  its 
favor.  But  it  goes  without  saying  that  one  is  not  war- 
ranted by  these  data  in  looking  in  it  for  an  obtrusive 
propaganda  of  Paulinism,  for  great  finesse  and  cunning 
art,  or  for  downright  invention  of  situations  and  doctrines 
in  the  interest  of  a  theory.  We  have  reason  probably  to 
look  for  precisely  that  setting  and  coloring  of  the  history 
which  are  due  to  the  writer's  environment  and  point  of 
view,  and  are  denoted  by  the  word  "  tendency."  To 
more  than  this  the  writer's  situation  could  hardly  have 
been  favorable.  The  observation  of  Holtzmann  appears 
to  be  well  grounded  that  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel 
was  written  the  material  of  the  Gospel-history  was  so 
fixed  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church  that  its  trans- 
formation according  to  Pauline  principles  could  not  have 
been  thoroughgoing,  and  must  have  been  confined  to 
slight  modifications  in  the  way  of  transpositions,  omis- 
sions, and  insertions.  *  The  way  in  which  the  twelve 
apostles  are  sometimes  referred  to  does  not  necessarily, 
as  Davidson  f  thinks,  following  the  Saxon  Anonymous 
whom  Baur  takes  to  task  for  his  excesses,:):  indicate  a 
disposition  to  depreciate  and  ridicule  them,  or  rather 
"  to  give  them  a  lower  place  than  Matthew  assigns  them." 

*  Einleit.  p.  400.  \  Introduction,  ii.  p.  45. 

;  Krit.  Untersuch.  p.  526  f. 


DOGMATIC  "  TENDENCIES"   IN  THE   GOSPELS.      303 

It  is  true  that  the  writer  mentions  once  a  strife  among 
them  as  to  who  should  be  greatest,  and  several  times 
their  slowness  of  heart  in  understanding  Jesus.  *  But  he 
may  have  found  the  narrative  as  he  gives  it  in  his  sources. 
Not  every  variation  in  the  Gospel-narratives  indicates  a 
tendency.  Besides,  a  writer  cannot  fairly  be  charged  with 
intentional  opposition  to  the  twelve  who  apparently  with 
design  passes  over  such  passages  as  Christ's  rebuke  of 
Peter  and  the  account  of  the  latter's  profanity,  f  If  such 
a  procedure  renders  it  impossible  that  the  writer  should 
be  regarded  as  an  "  anti-Petrine,"  remarks  Holtzmann, 
much  less  can  he  be  called  an  anti-Judaist  in  view  of  the 
facts  that  the  great  discourses  against  the  leaders  of  the 
people  contained  in  the  first  Gospel,  the  threats  and  woes 
of  the  anti-Pharisaic  philippics,  the  cursing  of  the  fig-tree, 
the  execration  of  the  entire  people,  are  partly  passed  over 
by  him,  and  partly  robbed  of  their  effect  by  distribution 
at  different  points. 

A  decided  inclination  towards  a  broader  and  more 
liberal  apprehension  of  Christianity  than  that  of  the 
Jewish  Christians  is,  however,  unmistakable  in  this  Gospel, 
and  is  indicated  by  several  traits.  Luke  alone  has  the 
account  of  the  appointment  and  mission  of  the  seventy, 
whose  large  number  as  compared  with  the  twelve  may 
very  well  be  supposed  to  indicate  an  enlargement  of  the 
field  of  labor  so  as  to  include  the  gentiles.  Accordingly, 
certain  passages  of  a  Jewish-Christian  tendency  in  the 
first  Gospel  are  omitted  in  this  Pauline  record,  such,  for 
example,  as  the  injunction  to  the  twelve  not  to  go  to  the 
gentiles  nor  to  the  Samaritans,  and  the  saying  of  Jesus 
that  he  was  not  sent  except  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 

*Chap.  ix.  45,  51-56;  xviii.  34;  xxiv.  25. 
\  Matt.  xvi.  22,  23  ;  xxvi.  74. 


304  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

of  Israel.  *  Certain  accords  with  Pauline  expressions 
indicate  a  familiarity  with  the  thought  if  not  with  the 
Epistles  of  Paul.f  The  account  of  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  appears  to  be  in  part  copied  from  Paul4 
In  the  discussion  of  Jesus  with  the  Sadducees  on  the  resur- 
rection the  words,  "  for  all  live  to  Him,"  are  added  appar- 
ently from  Paul.  §  In  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of 
the  sower  an  expression  is  added  to  the  other  synoptic 
accounts  in  accordance  with  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation through  faith.  ||  The  saying  respecting  the  first 
and  the  last  in  the  kingdom  appears  to  refer  to  the  rela- 
tions of  Jews  and  gentiles.  1"  Pauline  is  the  prophecy 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Simeon.**  The  genealogy  which 
goes  back  to  Adam  is  in  significant  contrast  to  that  of  the 
first  Gospel  which  stops  at  Abraham.  The  scene  in  the 
synagogue  at  Nazareth  has  an  addition  in  the  Pauline 
interest,  ff  In  the  parable  of  the  supper  is  allegorically 
expressed  the  Pauline  thought  that  the  gentiles  are  called 
into  the  kingdom  in  the  place  of  the  indifferent  Jews.J^: 
Not  without  significance  are  the  story  of  the  good  Samari- 
tan, who  may  be  regarded  as  a  representative  of  the 
gentile  world,  and  the  fondness  of  the  evangelist  for 
narratives  and  parables  representing  forgiveness  and  love 
for  sinners.  §§  The  love  born  of  faith  is  emphasized  in  the 
touching  story  of  the  anointing,  and  on  the  publican's  cry 
for  mercy  the  blessing  of  justification  is  pronounced.  |||| 

*  Matt.  x.  5  ;  xv.  24.  ^[  Chap.  xiii.  30. 

fChap.  x.  7,  8,  cf.  I.  Cor.  ix.  5,  14  ;  x.  27.  **  Chap.  ii.  31-34. 

JChap.  xxii  19,  20,  cf.  I.  Cor.  xi.  23-25.  ftchaP-  iv-  25-27. 

§Chap.  xx.  38,  cf.  Rom.  vi.  n  ;  xiv.  18.  \\  Chap.  xiv.  21-24. 

|  Chap.  viii.  12,  ivoc  jurf  TttdrevtiarreZ  dcaQoodt,  cf.  I.  Cor.  i.  21. 
§§Chap.  x.  30-38  ;  vii.  36-50;  xv.  11-32. 

Hi  Chap.  viii.  15-24,  dsdiHai^evo?,  "justified,"  the  Pauline  terminology 
at  least. 


DOGMATIC  "  TENDENCIES"  IN  THE   GOSPELS.     305 

As  a  merely  dogmatic  composition,  however,  the  third 
Gospel  cannot  fairly  be  regarded.  Its  generally  conceded 
tendency  towards  Paulinism  is  not  at  all  incompatible 
with  its  claim  to  as  great  a  degree  of  credibility  and  as 
truly  historical  a  character  as  belong  of  right  to  either  of 
the  other  synoptic  Gospels.  Its  slight  Judaistic  coloring 
bears  testimony  to  its  fidelity  to  the  original  tradition, 
while  its  breadth  and  liberality  show  the  influence  of  the 
great  Pauline  idea  by  which  alone  the  mission  of  Jesus 

received  its  true,  world-historical  interpretation. 
20 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE   OLD    TESTAMENT    IN    THE    GOSPELS,    OR    THE    HER- 
MENEUTICS   OF  THE   EVANGELISTS. 

THE  criticism  of  the  Gospels  must  not  only  take  into 
consideration  the  fact  that  the  evangelists  quote 
largely  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  endeavor  to  place 
the  mission  of  Jesus  in  a  relation  of  dependence  on  Jewish 
prophecy,  but  it  must  also  investigate  the  principles  of  in- 
terpretation according  to  which  these  quotations  are  made, 
and  study  the  phenomena  in  question  in  the  light  of  a 
scientific  hermeneutics.  It  is  not  necessary  for  the  pur- 
pose in  view  in  this  chapter  to  enter  into  an  examination 
in  detail  of  all  the  citations  of  the  kind  which  are  made  in 
the  Gospels,  and  the  present  inquiry  will  accordingly  be 
limited  to  a  few  taken  from  the  first  and  fourth  Gospels. 
For  an  account  of  the  general  character  of  the  citations 
from  the  Old  Testament  made  by  the  first  evangelist  the 
reader  is  referred  to  page  180.  The  question  naturally 
arises  at  the  outset  whether  the  quotations  to  be  con- 
sidered may  fairly  be  regarded  as  interpretations  of  the 
Old  Testament,  since  some  of  them  are  "  free  "  quotations, 
others  are  made  from  the  Septuagint  version,  which  is  noto- 
riously inaccurate,  and  few  if  any  show  certain  evidences  of 
a  careful  reference  to  the  original  Hebrew.  It  must  be 
conceded  that  these  conditions  furnish  a  decided  pre- 
sumption against  a  real  interpretation,  and  present  in  a 
strong  light  the  absurdity  of  the  pretension  of  the  evan- 
gelists to  show  in  the  history  of  Jesus  the  fulfilment  of 

306 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  IN  THE   GOSPELS.         307 

prophecy.  Now,  it  is  precisely  this  pretension  to  give  a 
real  interpretation  of  Old-Testament  passages  that  gives 
rise  to  the  problem.  For  if  the  quotations  in  question 
were  only  applications  of  passages  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment by  way  of  illustration,  or  mere  literary  embellish- 
ments, it  is  evident  that  the  case  would  be  quite  different 
from  that  actually  before  us,  and  that  there  would  be  no 
occasion  for  calling  in  question  the  hermeneutics  of  the 
evangelists. 

That  the  formula  with  which  many  of  the  quotations 
are  introduced  indicates  a  serious  purpose  to  interpret  the 
writers  so  quoted  does  not  admit  of  question.  Such  a 
purpose  could  not  be  more  explicitly  announced  than  by 
the  words  :  "  Now  all  this  took  place  in  order  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through 
the  prophet."  *  Winer  says  of  this  expression  and  of  all 
expressions  of  the  same  import  that  "  it  cannot  be 
doubted  "  that  "  when  used  in  reference  to  an  event 
which  has  already  occurred"  they  have  "the  more  precise 
sense  of  in  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  "  —  that  is,  that 
the  Greek  particle  iva  has  the  "  telic  "  and  not  the 
"  ecbatic  "  sense,  f  The  highest  authorities  in  lexicog- 
raphy and  the  most  distinguished  commentators  agree 
with  the  eminent  grammarian.  J  Now,  an  examination  of 
a  few  passages  in  which  the  quotations  occur  will  suffice 
to  show  the  hermeneutical  method  of  the  evanelists. 


*  rovro  de  o'X.ov  yeyovEv  Iva  rttypGaCy  TO  prflkv  vTtu  uvpiov  did 
rov  TtpoGrirov,  Matt.  i.  22. 

f  Grammar  of  the  Idiom  of  the  New  Testament,  etc.,  1869,  p.  461. 

\  Grimm's  Wilke's  Clavis  Novi  Testamenti,  Thayer's  translation,  1887, 
sub  voce  'iva,  and  Fritzsche,  Olshausen,  De  Wette,  and  Meyer  on  the  pas- 
sages. The  ecbatic  (&xpaTiu6<s)  sense  of  'iva.  as  ita  ut,  "  so  that,"  in  these 
passages  is  rejected  by  the  best  authorities,  although  it  has  been  advocated 
in  a  dogmatic  interest. 


308  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  in  Chapter  V.  to  the 
fact  that  the  first  evangelist,  *  in  interpreting  the  passage, 
Is.  vii.  14,  as  a  prophecy  of  the  miraculous  conception  of 
Jesus,  made  the  quotation  from  the  Septuagint  transla- 
tion, which  incorrectly  renders  the  Hebrew  word  for 
marriageable  young  woman  by  TtapOzvoS,  "  virgin."  A 
reference  to  the  prophet  quoted  shows  the  incongruity  of 
the  application  which  the  evangelist  makes  of  the  pas- 
sage, f  The  birth  of  the  child  is  announced  as  a  "  sign  " 
to  Ahaz.  This  child  shall  eat  butter  and  honey,  that  he 
may  know  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good,  for 
before  he  shall  have  reached  the  age  of  such  knowledge 
the  land  abhorred  by  Ahaz  shall  be  forsaken  of  both  her 
kings.  Nothing  more  than  this  is  indicated  or  intimated 
in  the  original  passage  and  its  connection.  A  passage 
from  HoseaJ  is  interpreted  as  a  prophecy  which  was 
fulfilled  by  the  flight  into  Egypt,  or  rather  by  the  return 
of  the  parents  of  Jesus  with  the  child  out  of  that  country. 
Here  the  translation  of  the  Septuagint  did  not  suit  the 
purpose  of  the  evangelist,  and  he  has  correctly  rendered 
the  Hebrew  text.  §  But  the  prophet  had  in  mind  Israel 
as  a  people,  and  evidently  nothing  else  :  "  When  Israel 
was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my  son  out  of 
Egypt."  A  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  is  said  to  be  fulfilled 
in  the  lamentation  over  the  children  slaughtered  by  the 
order  of  Herod,  |  a  free  quotation  according  to  the  Septu- 
agint, Cod.  Alex.,  probably.  T  The  words  of  the  prophet 
relate,  however,  to  the  Babylonian  captivity.  It  is  said 
that  Joseph  took  up  his  abode  in  Nazareth  "  in  order  that 

*  Chap.  i.  23.  f  Is.  vii.  14.  \  Hosea  xi.  I,  Matt.  ii.  15. 

§  The  septuagint  renders  the  Hebrew  133,  "my  son,"  by  TO.  reura  avrov, 
"his  sons." 

|  Jer.  xxxi.  15,  Matt.  ii.  18.  ^[  Credner,  Leitriige,  ii.  p.  146. 


THE   OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE   GOSPELS.         309 

it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through  the 
prophet :  He  will  be  called  a  Nazarene.  "  *  No  such 
prophecy,  however,  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,  f  John 
the  Baptist  is  said  to  have  been  foretold  by  Isaiah  in  the 
words  of  the  great  prophet  of  the  restoration  spoken  in 
reference  to  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  captivity  in 
Babylon.  J  The  statement  is  explicit :  "  For  this  is  he 
that  was  spoken  of  through  Isaiah  the  prophet,"  etc.  In 
Is.  ix.  i,  2,  the  prophet  declares  that  the  people  who  were 
in  the  darkness  of  the  Assyrian  captivity  "  have  seen  a 
great  light  "  in  the  hope  of  restoration  to  their  country ; 
but  the  first  evangelist  regards  Jesus'  residence  in  Caper- 
naum as  a  fulfilment  of  these  words.  The  citation  is  one 
of  the  freest,  and  is  a  distortion  of  the  original  apart 
from  the  incongruous  application.  It  cannot  be  referred 
to  the  Septuagint  and  is  nearer  the  Hebrew  text.  § 
Credner  remarks  that  the  old  translations,  the  variants  in 
the  Septuagint,  and  the  old  explanations  show  that  the 
passage  was  a  cliff  to  the  expositors  which  they  did  not 
know  how  to  sail  around  ;  but  that  if  the  sense  was  so  in- 
definite and  ambiguous  it  was  so  much  the  more  allowed 
to  give,  as  does  the  evangelist,  a  Messianic  interpretation 
to  the  obscure  words  and  with  their  help  to  contest  the 
unbelief  in  a  Messiah  from  Galilee.  |  Twice  also  does  the 
first  evangelist  apply  to  Jesus  words  spoken  by  the  second 
Isaiah  in  reference  to  the  pious  remnant  of  the  people  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  the  remnant  true  to  the  theo- 
cratic religion  in  whom  was  the  hope  of  the  nation.  T 

According  to  the  theory  of  the  authorship  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  set  forth  in  Chapter  VII.  its  citations  from  the  Old 

*  Chap.  ii.  23.  f  See  page  183,     Note  *. 

\  Matt.  iii.  3,  cf.  Is.  xl.  3.  §  Chap.  iv.  14,  15. 

I  Beitrage,  ii.  p.  139. 
Tf  Chap.  viii.  17,  xii.  17,  cf.  Is.  liii.  4,  xlii.  1-4. 


310  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Testament  should  be  found  to  be  made  from  the  Septua- 
gint,  through  which  alone  the  writer  probably  knew  the 
Hebrew  sacred  Scriptures.  They  are,  in  fact,  made  from 
this  translation,  sometimes  accurately,  and  sometimes 
with  great  freedom,  in  order  to  adapt  the  words  quoted 
to  the  purpose  in  view.  This  writer  leaves  no  doubt  in 
the  reader's  mind  that  he  believed  in  an  explicit  and  in- 
tentional reference  to  Christ  by  the  prophets.  Though 
Jesus  wrought  many  "  signs,"  he  says,  the  Jews  did  not 
believe  in  him,  "  in  order  that  what  was  spoken  by  Isaiah 
the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled  :  Lord,  who  hath  believed 
our  report  ?"  etc.  *  Then  he  adds  :  "  For  this  cause  they 
could  not  believe,  because  Isaiah  said  again  :  He  hath 
blinded  their  eyes,  and  hardened  their  heart,  lest  they 
should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  understand  with  their 
heart,  and  turn  from  their  ways,  and  I  should  heal  them." 
Finally  he  establishes  the  telic  sense  of  his  Greek  particle, 
i'va,  by  adding:  "  These  things  said  Isaiah  because  he  saw 
his  glory  and  spake  of  him."  f  Here  we  have  two  pas- 
sages brought  into  connection  which  originally  had  no  re- 
lation'to  each  other,  and  are  in  fact  from  two  different 
writers,  the  first  and  second  Isaiah.  They  are  not  in  any 
sense  prophecies,  and  require  no  fulfilment.  The  first 
Isaiah  hears  "  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  people,  '  See 
ye,  indeed,  and  perceive  not,'  "  etc.,  and  "  Make  the  heart 
of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut 
their  eyes,  lest  they  see,"  etc.  Then  the  prophet  asks, 
"  How  long?  "  The  answer  is,  "  Until  the  cities  be  wasted 
*  *  *  and  the  land  be  desolate.";);  In  the  other  pas- 
sage the  prophet  of  the  restoration  simply  complains  that 
his  word  is  disregarded.  There  is  nothing  in  the  passages 

*  Chap.  xii.  38,  cf.  Is.  liii.  I.  f  Chap.  xii.  40,  41,  cf.  Is.  vi.  10. 

\  Is.  vi.  10  f. 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  AY  THE    GOSPELS.         311 

or  their  context  to  indicate  a  reference  by  their  writers  to 
events  future  to  their  own  times.  Again,  the  treachery 
and  the  fate  of  Judas  are  represented  as  a  fulfilment  of 
prophecy.*  But  the  Psalm  to  which  reference  is  made 
for  the  words,  "  My  own  familiar  friend  who  did  eat  of 
my  bread  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me/'f  contains 
complaints  of  the  writer  purely  personal  to  himself,  and  if 
any  part  of  it  is  applicable  in  the  way  of  prophecy  to 
Christ,  a  sound  interpretation  requires  that  all  of  it  should 
be  applicable  to  him.  Yet  no  one  would  allow  that  the 
words,  "  Heal  my  soul,  for  I  have  sinned  against  Thee," 
can  properly  be  so  applied.  The  typology  on  which  apol- 
ogists depend  for  the  vindication  of  the  hermeneutics  of 
the  evangelists  almost  always  breaks  down  when  the  con- 
nection of  the  Old-Testament  passage  is  taken  into  ac- 
count. There  is  in  fact  no  passage  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  by  the  most  strained  allegorizing  can  be  made  out 
to  be  a  prophecy  of  the  person  or  the  fate  of  Judas. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  proceed  further  in  the  examination 
of  these  quotations.  One  hazards  nothing  in  saying  that 
in  all  the  Gospels  there  is  not  a  single  application  of  a  so- 
called  prophetic  passage  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
history  of  Jesus  which  can  be  justified  by  a  scientific  in- 
terpretation. The  hermeneutical  method  of  the  evange- 
lists was  a  false  method,  and  it  is  fruitless  to  attempt  its 
defence.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  the  frantic 
efforts  of  apologists  to  make  it  appear  to  be  good  herme- 
neutics, unless  it  be  to  set  up  the  claim  that  the  evange- 
lists were  "  inspired  "  grammarians  and  hermeneuts,  and 
were  miraculously  preserved  from  error  in  their  interpre- 
tations of  the  Old  Testament.  Their  method  was  the  al- 
legorical, which  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  the 

*  Chap.  xiii.  18  ;  xvii.  12.  f  Ps.  xi.  i. 


3 1 2  GOSPEL-CRI TICISM. 

Speaker's  Commentary  has  vitiated  the  greater  part  of 
biblical  interpretation  in  the  Christian  Church.  It  owes  its 
origin  and  maintenance  to  the  exigencies  of  a  dogmatic  in- 
terest.* In  order  to  support  a  given  doctrine  by  appeal 
to  a  writing  supposed  to  be  authoritative  passages  are 
quoted  from  this  scripture,  and  if  by  a  correct  historical 
and  grammatical  interpretation  they  do  not  yield  the 
desired  sense  they  are  allegorized  (ak\a  dyopevsir,  to  say 
other  things),  or  made  to  say  what  they  do  not  really 
mean.  Now,  as  has  been  shown  in  Chapter  IX.,  the  first 
evangelist  wrote  in  a  dogmatic  interest.  He  wished  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  history  of  Jesus  had  been  fore- 
told by  the  Hebrew  prophets.  He  could  not  do  this 
without  allegorizing,  and  since  allegorizing  was  the  fashion 
of  his  time,  he  resorted  to  it  in  perfect  naivete"  and  good 
faith.  But  Christian  interpreters  who  ought  to  have  known 
better,  in  whose  justification  in  fact  naivete  cannot  be  plead- 
ed, have  avenged  upon  the  writings  of  the  evangelists  their 
unsophisticated  torture  of  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

It  is  precisely  this  fact  that  the  hermeneutical  method 
of  the  evangelists  was  the  one  in  vogue  in  their  time 
which  furnishes  a  reason  for  their  procedure  and  the  only 
apology  that  can  be  made  for  it.  The  allegorical  and 
typical  interpretation  by  .which  any  sense  that  a  dogmatic 
interest  required  could  be  obtained  from  a  biblical  pas- 
sage, and  the  extreme  literalism  which  pressed  a  text  or  a 
word  regardless  of  its  original  meaning  and  its  context, 
were  characteristics  of  the  Palestinian- Jewish  exegesis.f 
Had  the  evangelists  been  superior  to  the  influences  of 
their  age  in  this  regard,  they  would  have  presented  a 
truly  surprising  phenomenon,  and  given,  perhaps,  evi- 
dence of  miraculous  guidance  and  inspiration.  That  they 

*See  Essays,  etc.,  by  Fifteen  Clergymen,  Boston,  1889,  p.  140  f. 
•J-  Iramer,  Ilermeneutik,  p.  28. 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  IN  THE   GOSPELS.         313 

employed  this  method,  however,  far  more  sparingly  than 
many  of  their  contemporary  writers  is  an  evidence  that 
they  possessed  those  qualities  of  soberness  and  good  judg- 
ment to  which  it  is  largely  due  that  their  writings  were 
reckoned  among  the  classics  of  the  Christian  literature  of 
the  first  two  centuries,  or  in  other  words  became  ca- 
nonical.* It  was  inevitable  that  from  the  rabbinical  liter- 
ature and  from  Philo,  the  great  Alexandrian  allegorist, 
who  employed  it  freely  in  the  interest  of  eliminating  from 
the  Old  Testament  certain  ethical  teachings  and  histori- 
cal statements  which  offended  Hellenic  culture,  this 
method  of  interpretation  should  pass  into  the  Christian 
Church.  We  should  expect  to  find  it  pervading  the  New 
Testament  from  our  knowledge  of  the  antecedents  and 
environment  of  its  writers.  Of  these  says  Bleek,  the  cau- 
tious representative  of  a  "  mediating  "  theology,  that  in 
their  conception  of  single  passages  in  the  Old  Testament 
they  are  more  or  less  dependent  on  an  earlier  exegetical 
tradition  as  it  had  taken  form  in  the  schools  of  the  Jews, 
as  well  as  on  the  entire  condition  of  exegesis  in  their  time 
among  that  people ;  and  since  we  are  not  justified  in  pre- 
supposing that  the  Jewish  exegesis  of  the  time  rested 
either  in  general  or  in  particular  on  perfectly  correct  prin- 
ciples, and  was  employed  in  a  manner  wholly  right,  we 
cannot  but  expect  that  this  fact  should  have  so  influenced 
the  New-Testament  writers  as  to  lead  them  to  apprehend 
this  or  that  Old-Testament  passage  in  a  sense  which,  in  a 
greater  perfection  of  exegetical  science  and  skill,  and  with 
a  more  harmonious  application  of  all  the  auxiliary  helps, 
would  not  prove  to  be  entirely  correct  and  accurate.f 

*  See  p.  30. 

f  Ueber  die  dogmatische  Benutzung  alttestamentlicher  Ausspriiche  im 
neuen  Testament,  etc.,  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1835,  p.  447.  See  also 
Dopke,  Hermeneutik  der  neutest.  Schriftsteller,  1829,  p.  189  f. 


314  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Accordingly,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  *  referring  to  Christ  the 
words  of  a  Psalm,  "  Thou  art  my  son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee,"  which  in  the  original  are  addressed  to  a 
Jewish  king,  and  making  a  similar  use  of  allegorical  inter- 
pretation in  many  other  passages.  The  exegesis  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  too,  shows  the  influence  of  his  rabbinical 
training,  for  he  is  quoted  as  employing  this  same  passage 
in  a  similar  way,  f  and  throughout  his  Epistles  he  treats 
the  Old  Testament  allegorically  and  typologically.  To 
him  Adam  was  a  type  (TVTTOZ)  of  Christ,  and  various 
events  of  Hebrew  history  happened  as  "  ensamples " 
(rvniK&l,  TVTTOI)  for  Christians.  The  two  wives  of  Abra- 
ham were  "  an  allegory,"  and  prefigured  the  old  and  the 
new  covenants.  J  The  rock  smitten  by  Moses  prefigured 
Christ,  and  was  a  " spiritual  rock"  (jtttpa  nvsv^ariHrj)^ 
typical  of  the  source  of  "  Irving  water."  He  presses  the 
collective  singular,  "  seed  "  (ffTtfp^ia)  in  order  to  show  that 
by  it  only  the  one  Christ  can  be  meant,  §  as  if  it  were 
at  all  allowable  to  say  that  a  promise  was  made  to  the 
"  seeds  "  of  Abraham !  If  the  author  of  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  and  Justin  Martyr  descend  to  a  more  trivial 
typology  than  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  employ, 
their  offence  is  different  in  degree  only  and  not  in  kind 
from  that  of  the  latter. 

To  refer  the  question  of  these  quotations  to  typology 
and  leave  it  there,  as  many  expositors  do,  |  is  quite  un- 
satisfactory from  the  critical  point  of  view.  For  criticism 
cannot  but  inquire  into  the  grounds  of  typology,  and  see 
whether  or  no  it  have  any  justification,  and  if  there  be 

*  Chap.  v.  5,  cf.  Ps.  ii.  7.  f  Acts  xiii.  33.  \  Gal.  iv.  24. 

§  Gal.  iii.  16.     See  Immer,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  p.  252. 
|  Even  Meyer.     See  his  commentary  on  the  passages. 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  IN  THE   GOSPELS.         31$ 

any,  of  what  sort  it  is.  Now  typology  in  the  only  sense 
in  which  it  can  have  any  significance  for  theology  involves 
prophecy,  or,  in  other  words,  it  implies  that  a  person  or 
an  event  written  of  by  an  author  in  some  past  age  is  in- 
tended to  prefigure  a  person  or  an  event  which  in  some 
future  age  shall  be  a  fulfilment  of  the  type.  The  only 
real  antetype,  then,  is  something  which  is  prophetically 
seen  and  intentionally  expressed  in  the  terms  by  which  it 
is  assumed  to  be  indicated.  According  to  this  canon  the 
paschal  lamb  can  only  have  been  a  type  of  Christ,  or  the 
emigration  of  Israel  from  Egypt  typical  of  Jesus'  return 
from  that  country,  if  the  writers  in  whom  these  supposed 
types  are  found  intended  to  convey  such  a  prefiguring. 
On  no  other  principle  can  the  typological  interpretation 
be  guarded  against  perversion  by  unlimited  caprice  and 
fancy.  If  a  certain  thing  or  event  may  be  a  type  of  any 
other  thing  or  event  subsequently  happening  to  which  a 
writer  turning  the  leaves  of  history  to  find  "  ensamples  " 
may  see  fit  to  apply  it,  then  there  is  manifestly  an  end  of 
all  typology  except  that  of  the  imagination.  To  pre- 
figure nothing  in  particular  but  anything  in  general  is 
really  not  to  prefigure  at  all.  Now,  if  we  apply  this 
canon  to  the  Old  Testament  we  shall  find  in  it  no  types 
at  all.  For  it  does  not  appear  that  in  any  of  the  passages  in 
it  which  are  applied  in  the  Gospels  or  Epistles  to  events 
in  the  history  of  Christ  the  writers  had  any  remotely 
future  circumstances  or  personality  in  mind,  but  only 
matters  in  or  very  near  their  own  time. 

If  we  interpret  the  Old-Testament  authors  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  which  we  apply  to  the  interpretation 
of  other  writers,  we  do  not  find  that  their  words  explained 
in  their  natural  or  grammatical  and  historical  meaning 
appear  to  prefigure  events  which  were  to  happen  several 


3 1 6  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

hundred  years  after  their  time.  Whence  then  are  the 
types  ?  Plainly,  they  are  the  invention  of  a  false,  rabbini- 
cal exegesis.  No  one  would  ever  have  thought  of  them 
but  for  the  refinements  of  this  perverted  hermeneutics. 
Those  who  applied  this  exegesis  to  the  Old  Testament 
made  the  discovery  of  types,  because  they  wished  to  find 
in  writings  assumed  to  be  authoritative  the  confirmation 
of  certain  doctrines,  and  being  unable  to  find  it  in  any 
other  way,  resorted  to  the  process  of  exegetical  pressure. 
If  one  will  seek  to  defend  typology  by  the  doctrine  of  a 
"  double  sense,"  then  with  that  doctrine  let  it  stand  or 
fall.  If  the  Old-Testament  writers  conveyed  the  type  in 
a  "  hidden  "  or  "  deeper  "  sense  of  their  words,  then  it  is 
not  allowable  to  say  that  they  were  conscious  of  it,  since 
we  have  no  right  to  affirm  that  one  is  conscious  of  a  par- 
ticular thing  which  one  does  not  express.  But  if  the  type 
is  "  hidden,"  who  will  undertake  to  furnish  a  rule  for  find- 
ing it  out  ?  The  only  means  of  certainly  determining 
what  it  is  in  each  case  would  appear  to  be  an  inspired 
hermeneutics,  of  which  history  furnishes  no  examples. 
The  theory  that  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
not  conscious  of  indicating  types,  but  prophesied  "  better 
than  they  knew,"  is  altogether  trivial  and  absurd.  He 
who  prophesies  better  than  he  knows,  or,  in  other  words, 
what  he  does  not  know,  cannot  be  said  really  to  prophesy 
at  all.  The  alleged  prophecies  are  afterwards  interpreted 
into  his  writings,  and  may  be  one  thing  or  another  accord- 
ing to  the  fancy  of  the  interpreter.  The  only  application 
of  type,  then,  which  appears  to  be  permissible  is  that 
which  Diestel  calls  the  "  logical  "  *  and  Immer  seems  to 
approve.f  It  is,  however,  emptied  of  all  theological  sig- 

*  Article  "  Vorbild  "  in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexicon,  v.  p.  620. 
f  Hermeneutik,  p.  133  f. 


THE   OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE   GOSPELS.        317 

nificance,  since  it  rests  upon  mere  historical  analogy,  or 
similarity  of  circumstances  or  fortune  in  different  ages. 
In  this  sense,  according  to  Immer,  the  "  servant  of 
Jahveh  "  in  the  second  Isaiah  may  be  a  type,  though  not 
a  prophecy,  of  Christ.  But  it  is  evident  that  from  this 
point  of  view  the  application  might  be  made  to  any  per- 
son who  should  be  "  afflicted  "  on  account  of  the  trans- 
gressions of  his  people.  But  in  no  such  trivial  sense  did 
the  evangelists  understand  and  apply  the  prophecies  of 
their  sacred  books,  and  the  rationalizing  which  so  perverts 
their  serious  intention  is  very  unjust  to  them.  They  un- 
dertook, as  has  been  shown,  a  real  interpretation,  and  no 
mere  literary  embellishment.  If  their  exegesis  was  faulty, 
and  faulty  it  certainly  was  if  there  exist  any  valid  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation,  it  is  because  they  were  true  chil- 
dren of  their  race  and  age,  and  thought  and  wrote  in 
entire  sincerity  in  accordance  with  the  standards  and  the 
point  of  view  then  and  there  recognized  and  in  vogue. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE   GOSPELS  AS   HISTORIES. 

THE  decisive  test  to  which  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels 
is  subjected  lies  in  its  conclusions  respecting  their 
historical  character.  It  cannot  shrink  from  answering  the 
questions  which  are  here  pressed  upon  it  not  only  by  the 
devout,  by  the  Christian  consciousness,  by  the  Church,  by 
eighteen  centuries  of  Christian  history,  but  also  by  scep- 
ticism itself.  For  these  questions  concern  the  interpreta- 
tion of  history  and  the  rationality  of  thinking.  They 
regard  the  problem,  whether  the  most  fruitful  moral  and 
spiritual  impulse  in  the  world's  history  proceeded  from 
a  fact  or  a  dream,  from  a  great  personality  or  a  phan- 
tom. The  criticism  of  the  Gospels  must,  then,  answer 
whether  these  writings  are  the  artless  productions  of  sin- 
cere men  containing  the  tradition  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
in  its  essential  features,  or  artificial  creations,  religious 
romances,  dominated  by  ideal  aims  and  "  tendencies  "  in 
which  history  is  dissolved.  Questions  of  this  sort  are 
rightly  addressed  to  the  critic  of  the  Gospels,  not  because 
the  Gospels  are  the  source  of  Christianity,  not  because 
there  was  not  a  Christian  religion  before  there  were  Gos- 
pels, and  a  century  of  Christian  history  before  they  were 
recognized  as  canonical,  but  because  they  are  the  revered 
and  most  ancient  documents  of  Christianity,  and  contain 
and  preserve  the  tradition  of  Jesus.  Now,  although  the 
invalidation  of  the  Gospels  would  not,  indeed,  destroy 

318 


THE   GOSPELS  AS   HISTORIES.  319 

Christianity,  for  it  is  indestructible,  he  who  subjects  them 
to  a  free  handling  and  reconstruction  may  well  be  called 
upon  to  give  an  account  of  his  results,  whether  there 
remain  a  kernel  or  a  husk. 

That  a  kernel  and  not  a  husk  remains  as  the  result  of 
the  critical  sifting  of  the  Gospels  is  at  length  the  almost 
unanimous  verdict  of  criticism  whose  real  function  it  is, 
indeed,  to  preserve  the  kernel  and  cast  the  husk  aside.  It 
is  a  significant  fact  in  the  history  of  the  criticism  of  the 
Gospels  that  extremists,  of  whatever  school,  have  not 
exerted  a  permanent  influence,  have  not  well  maintained 
their  ground.  The  vagaries  of  Bruno  Bauer,  and  the 
negative  criticism  of  Strauss,  though  put  forth  with  great 
learning  and  acumen,  find  no  advocates  among  the  distin- 
guished scholars  of  the  present  day,  and  the  tendency  in  the 
Tubingen  school  has  been  steadily  towards  the  recognition 
of  the  historical  element  in  the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  a 
more  conservative  view  of  the  history  of  the  canon.  After 
having  apparently  exhausted  all  the  possibilities  of  form- 
ing hypotheses,  examined  with  infinite  patience  all  the 
facts  in  the  case  as  well  as  innumerable  fancies  and  theo- 
ries, analyzed  the  records  with  the  most  unsparing  scrutiny, 
and  illuminated  them  with  the  widest  and  most  accurate 
historical  and  linguistic  learning,  Gospel-criticism  appears 
to  have  run  its  course,  and  to  have  ended  in  entirely 
defensible,  conservative  conclusions.  The  so-called  source- 
criticism  of  Eichhorn  advanced  by  its  author  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  century  with  the  design  of  "  establishing  the 
internal  credibility  and  truth  of  the  Gospel-history,"  has, 
though  rejected  in  his  particular  application  of  it,  continued 
to  grow  in  favor,  and  has  established  itself  as  the  only 
method  which  can  produce  satisfactory  results.  The  rela- 
tion of  this  source-criticism  to  the  historical  character  of 


32O  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

the  Gospels  is  apparent  from  the  conclusions  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapters  which  have  been  devoted  to  a  study  of 
the  synoptics  from  that  point  of  view.  It  is  manifestly  of 
the  greatest  importance  to  the  question  of  the  historical 
character  of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  which  will  alone  be 
considered  here,  that  the  writers  all  appear  to  have  de- 
pended in  a  greater  or  less  degree  on  one  original  source, 
which  may  be  clearly  traced  in  these  records,  if  not  recon- 
structed from  them.  The  logia,  or  sayings  of  Jesus,* 
the  first  collection  of  which  Papias  ascribes  to  Matthew, 
undoubtedly  composed  the  principal  part  of  this  source. 
These  pithy,  aphoristic  sayings  of  Jesus  which,  as  Strauss 
remarks,  could  not  be  dissolved  by  the  flood  of  oral  tra- 
dition, in  however  different  ways  they  may  have  been 
combined  by  the  synoptists,  may  be  regarded  as  consti- 
tuting the  historic  kernel  of  their  narratives.  Had  Papias* 
Exposition  of  the  \6yia  Hvpiaxa  been  preserved  we  know 
not  what  strange  and  improbable  sayings  would  have 
been  found  in  it  attributed  to  Jesus.  For  the  oral  tradi- 
tion on  which  he  depended  for  his  collection  must,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  have  been  a  precarious  source.  That 
this  source  had  perils  for  the  evangelists,  too,  so  far  as 
they  depended  on  it,  cannot  be  denied.  The  fact,  how- 
ever, that  Matthew  committed  his  collection  of  the  logia 
to  writing  is  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  the  extent 
to  which  the  historical  credibility  of  the  synoptics  is  due 
to  it  is  perhaps  inappreciable.  But  it  should  be  kept  in 
mind  in  considering  the  perils  to  which  the  synoptists 
were  exposed  from  oral  tradition  or  from  any  other  source 
that  they  appear  to  have  been  men  of  exceptionally  sound 
and  sober  judgment.  This  quality  is  evinced  by  the 
nature  of  their  writings,  and  is  a  factor  in  the  historical 
*  rd  Xoyia  rov  xvpiov,  \6yia  yivpia.-K.d~ 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES.  321 

character  of  these  which  cannot  be  too  highly  estimated. 
Had  they  been  such  men  as  the  good  Bishop  Papias,  their 
records  might  have  contained  the  account  of  the  famous 
vineyards  of  the  Messianic  age,  and  we  do  not  know  what 
fantastic  and  absurd  stories  besides. 

The  assumed  lapse  of  time  between  the  event  and  the 
record  is  evidently  an  important  consideration  in  the 
study  of  the  historical  credibility  of  the  Gospels.  Not  to 
be  too  precise  in  the  matter  of  dates,  we  may  place  the 
composition  of  the  synoptics  between  forty  and  sixty 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ.  It  would  appear  at  the 
first  glance  that  after  the  life-time  of  from  one  to  two 
generations  histories  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word 
could  not  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  produced  under 
the  then  existing  circumstances.  There  is  room  for  grave 
question  at  this  point,  and  due  weight  should  be  allowed 
to  the  doubt  to  which  these  conditions  give  rise.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  synoptists 
based  their  records  on  antecedent  writings,  one  of  which 
can  be  traced  without  doubt  to  Matthew,  and  found  in 
various  fragments  in  all  three  narratives.  Of  this  we 
know,  indeed,  with  certainty,  nothing  more  than  that  it 
contained  certain  sayings  of  Jesus.  Criticism  is  unable 
precisely  to  determine  its  extent,  and  has  no  means  of 
fixing  its  date.  Of  other  writings  mentioned  by  Luke, 
and  probably  used  by  him,  it  knows  nothing,  and  is  not 
at  unity  with  itself  as  to  his  use  of  our  first  Gospel.  This 
situation  evidently  presents  a  difficulty  which  is  not  at  all 
relieved  by  the  fact  that  the  evangelists  did  not  proceed 
in  the  manner  of  modern  historians,  perhaps  we  may  say 
in  the  manner  of  historians  proper  of  any  age,  and  inform 
their  readers  of  the  sources  of  their  narratives.  The  dif- 
ficulty is,  however,  somewhat  relieved  by  the  character  of 


322  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

the  central  figure  in  the  history,  the  personality  of  Jesus 
as  we  know  it  from  the  records  themselves.  That  he 
made  a  very  profound  and  lasting  impression  upon  his 
generation,  and  in  particular  upon  his  immediate  followers, 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  simple  grandeur  of  his  char- 
acter, and  the  easily  remembered  teachings  which  he  left, 
sententious,  aphoristic  expressions,  according  to  the  synop- 
tic records,  must  have  produced  a  tradition  of  great  vivid- 
ness and  vitality  to  which  history  probably  furnishes  no 
parallel.  If  we  add  to  this  the  fact  which  is  generally 
conceded,  that  the  tradition  of  Jesus  constituted  the 
substance  of  the  preaching  and  teaching  of  the  apostles 
and  their  followers  for  a  considerable  time  after  his  death, 
we  have  conditions  antecedent  to  the  writing  of  the 
Gospels  not  at  all  unfavorable  to  the  composition  of 
writings  entitled  to  be  called  historical,  so  far  at  least  as 
the  essential  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  portrait  of  his 
character  are  concerned.  The  concession  of  Kostlin,  a 
Tubingen  critic,  is  noteworthy  in  this  connection  :  "  The 
narratives  of  the  synoptists  date  from  a  time  which  was 
near  enough  to  the  facts  reported  by  them  to  enable  them 
to  hold  them  in  memory,  and  to  remain  in  accord  with 
the  historical  situation,  even  in  regard  to  those  important 
features  of  it,  as  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  public 
ministry  in  Galilee,  in  connection  with  which  attempts 
had  already  been  made  in  a  symbolic  and  poetic  way,  and 
through  ideal  narratives  and  Old-Testament  prototypes 
representing  his  earthly  person  and  history  in  the  splendor 
of  Messianic  glory,  to  set  forth  the  greatness  and  dignity 
which  belonged  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  the  blessings 
which  would  flow  from  him  to  his  people." 

The  source-criticism  according  to  which  Mark's  Gospel 
is  the  oldest,  and  has  been  substantially  taken  up  into  the 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES.  $2$ 

other  two  synoptics,  finds  confirmation  in  the  fact  that 
that  record  approaches  more  nearly  a  genuinely  historical 
character  than  these.  It  is  tolerably  free  from  legendary 
narratives,  and  is  throughout  well  arranged  and  self-con- 
sistent, though  not  always  presenting  a  strictly  chrono- 
logical order.  Of  "  tendency  "  and  disturbing  dogmatic 
interests  there  is  almost  no  trace.  The  proclamation  of 
the  kingdom  is  the  prominent  theme,  and  the  personality 
of  the  Founder  is  subordinated.  As  has  been  pointed  out 
in  Chapter  III.,  the  Messianic  title  and  claims  of  Jesus  are 
not  thrust  forward  at  the  beginning  as  in  the  first  Gospel, 
but  a  cautious  and  steady  progress  is  indicated  which  is 
consistent  with  the  great  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  This 
historical  plan  corresponds  with  the  probabilities  of  the 
case,  and  is  so  far  favorable  to  the  credibility  of  this  Gos- 
pel in  a  very  important  part  of  its  contents.  For  nothing 
is  more  improbable  than  that  Jesus  should  for  any  consid- 
erable time  have  journeyed  about  Galilee  in  the  face  of 
the  Roman  authorities  under  the  banner  of  the  "  Son  of 
David  "  and  the  "  King  of  Israel."  Besides,  the  frequent 
and  sometimes  awkwardly-placed  injunctions  of  silence 
even  in  the  first  Gospel  show  the  persistence  of  the  tra- 
dition as  Mark  has  in  general  apprehended  it.  This 
Gospel,  however,  which  was  not  written  until  after  the 
first  generation  from  the  death  of  Christ,  could  not 
entirely  escape  the  influences  of  that  legendary  period 
in  which  some  unhistorical  features  were  stamped  upon 
the  tradition  of  Jesus. 

That  the  oral  proclamation  of  the  Gospel,  naturally 
occupied  no  doubt  very  largely  with  a  repetition  of  the 
sayings  and  doings  of  Jesus,  should  have  taken  on  a  frag- 
mentary, disconnected  form  was  natural  and  inevitable. 
No  change  in  this  form  except  for  the  worse  could  result 


324  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

from  the  delivery  of  the  message  of  the  Gospel  by  others 
than  the  original  witnesses,  by  wandering  preachers  and 
ecstatic  speakers  "  with  tongues."  How  the  evangelic 
tradition  was  affected  to  the  prejudice  of  historical  accu- 
racy and  continuity  by  the  way  in  which  it  came  to  those 
who  finally  gave  it  a  fixed  form  in  writing  is  shown  in  the 
Gospels  themselves,  particularly  when  their  narratives  are 
critically  compared  with  one  another.  The  separate 
scenes  of  the  life  of  Jesus  are  placed  in  a  loose  connection, 
so  that  one  is  puzzled  to  tell  whether  a  given  arrangement 
is  made  with  intention,  or  because  the  writer  found  diffi- 
culty in  handling  his  material.  Sayings  of  Jesus  are 
grouped  in  masses  or  dispersed  apparently  according  to 
a  purpose  or  a  fancy  of  the  evangelist,  and  frequently  an 
aphorism  receives  from  its  setting  now  one  application 
and  now  another.  The  chronological  sequence  is  often 
indeterminable,  as  when  the  first  evangelist  connects  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  immediately  with  the 
return  from  Egypt  by  the  words,  "  In  those  days,"  etc. 
The  relation  of  the  records  to  one  another  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  the  arbitrary  and  violent  procedures  of  the 
harmonists  could  not  but  be  abandoned  as  soon  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  evangelists  was  found 
to  be  untenable.  Yet  in  the  midst  of  all  the  chaotic 
elements  which  the  flood  of  oral  tradition  rolled  along  is 
clearly  discernible  an  historical  grouping  of  salient  facts, 
the  appearance  of  the  Baptist,  the  Galilean  ministry  of 
Jesus,  the  healings,  the  teachings,  the  travels  with  the 
disciples,  the  gathering  multitudes,  the  conflicts,  Caesarea 
Philippi,  the  fateful  journey  to  Jerusalem,  Gethsemane, 
the  trial  and  the  tragedy,  the  consternation  of  the  little 
flock,  and  the  mysterious  birth  of  a  great  hope. 

As  history,  however,  pure  history  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word,  the  Gospel-narratives  can  by  no  means  be 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES.  325 

regarded.  Of  vivid,  immediate  impressions  of  the  life 
and  teachings  of  Jesus  they  are  not,  and  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  could  not  be,  the  record.  The  historical  interest 
and  motive,  with  all  the  prominence  which  they  hold 
throughout,  are  not  unmixed  with  motives  and  interests 
which  check  and  wrest  their  proper  development.  To 
apply  to  these  records  the  canons  of  historical  composi- 
tion were  an  error  only  less  misleading  than  that  of  regard- 
ing them  as  the  speculations  of  artful  "  tendency  "  philos- 
ophers, or  collections  of  myths  intended  to  interpret  the 
life  of  Jesus  through  prototypes  of  Old-Testament  history 
or  legend.  The  constructions  of  apologists  and  the  hy- 
potheses of  Strauss  are  alike  broken  in  pieces  against  these 
unique  productions  of  love  and  legend.  That  the  tradi- 
tion of  Jesus,  in  the  absence  of  a  fixed  and  definite  form, 
should  have  undergone  no  modifications  in  passing  through 
the  media  which  it  traversed  before  it  was  recorded  in  the 
Gospels  is  incredible  to  any  one  who  regards  the  condi- 
tions from  an  historical  or  psychological  point  of  view. 
That  cold  and  critical  research  rather  than  the  transfigur- 
ing imagination  should  have  been  occupied  with  it  is 
improbable  and  contrary  to  all  the  facts  in  the  case. 
Accordingly,  the  picture  of  Jesus  which  the  evangelists 
have  produced  is  not  a  photograph  nor  a  reproduction 
from  memory,  but  rather  a  reconstruction  at  which  faith, 
hope,  and  legend  wrought.  The  prominence  of  the 
biographical  interest  is  not  more  evident  in  their  records 
than  is  the  want  of  material  for  a  real  biography.  In  the 
chronological  confusion  the  subject-order  often  takes  the 
place  of  the  time-order,  and  there  is  a  painful  absence  of 
important  dates.  Information  regarding  the  youth  and 
education  of  Jesus  there  is  none,  and  even  his  birth-place 
is  questionable. 

That  the  Gospels  are  historical  writings,  then,  is  true ; 


326  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

but  the  affirmation  is  only  a  half-truth.  The  whole  truth 
is  that  they  are  different  from  histories,  more  than  his- 
tories. They  contain  historical  reminiscences  of  Jesus, 
vivid  pictures  of  his  life,  striking  sketches  of  his  character, 
above  all,  authentic  reproductions  of  his  great  teachings. 
But  what  a  generation  or  two  of  Jewish  Christians  had 
believed  about  him  and  hoped  from  him  as  the  national 
Messiah ;  what  construction  Pauline  Christians  had  put 
upon  some  of  his  words ;  what  reverence,  faith,  and  won- 
der had  wrought  of  transformation  in  his  tradition ;  and 
what  the  glamour  of  poesy  had  woven  into  his  legend, 
these  are  also  discernible  in  them.  If  the  tradition  of 
the  Founder  of  Christianity  had  a  natural,  historical 
development,  its  product  in  the  synoptic  Gospels  must 
inevitably  have  been  what  it  is,  an  account  not  only  of 
what  he  was  in  himself  as  Jesus,  but  of  what  he  was 
believed  to  be  as  Christ.  Human  love,  veneration,  faith, 
could  not  so  guard  it  that  it  would  not  take  such  a  course. 
Nothing  short  of  a  supernatural  intervention,  a  suspension 
of  psychological  laws,  a  reversal  of  history,  could  have 
compassed  a  different  result.  The  tendency  to  subordi- 
nate the  spiritual  and  essential  teachings  of  Jesus  to 
materialistic  and  apocalyptic  ideas  and  hopes  was  not  less 
strong,  certainly,  in  the  first  century  than  it  has  been 
since  to  the  great  detriment  of  Christianity.  Accordingly, 
of  the  three  great  principles  of  the  early  creed,  "  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah ;  he  is  risen ;  he  will  come  again  in 
glory,"  two  were  doubtless  not  taught  by  Jesus  at  all. 
Their  appearance  in  the  Gospels  is  only  explicable  on  the 
theory  that  these  writings  are  the  deposit  not  alone  of 
the  actual  tradition  of  Jesus,  but  of  the  beliefs,  medita- 
tions, and  hopes  concerning  him  which  occupied  the  first 
generation  or  two  after  his  death.  That  the  form  and 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES. 

contents  of  the  Gospels  must  have  been  to  some  extent 
determined  by  the  tendency  to  group  the  sayings  of  Jesus 
around  the  two  ideas,  Jewish  Messianism  and  the  glorious 
return  of  the  Messiah  with  the  angels,  needs  no  other 
proof  than  these  writings  themselves  furnish. 

That  the  Old  Testament  should  have  been  read  in  a 
new  light  by  Jews  who  had  accepted  Jesus  as  their  Mes- 
siah, was  the  inevitable  consequence  of  an  entirely 
changed  point  of  view.  But  whether  there  was  "  a  veil 
upon  their  heart,"  or  upon  that  of  their  brethren  who  did 
not  so  accept  Jesus,  is  a  question  on  which  Paul  and  the 
scientific  hermeneut  are  not  agreed.  The  tendency,  how- 
ever, to  search  the  Old  Testament  for  events  typical  of 
what  Jesus  should  be  as  the  Messiah  could  not  but  affect 
the  reconstruction  of  his  tradition,  in  connection  with  the 
belief  that  he  ought  to  fulfil,  if  not  surpass,  what  had 
been  prefigured,  as  was  thought,  by  the  great  prototypes. 
When  by  this  new  hermeneutics  the  Old  Testament  had 
been  so  far  transformed  that  its  image  of  the  Messiah- 
king  was  converted  into  that  of  the  suffering  servant,  so 
that  "the  cross  ceased  to  be  a  stumbling-block,"*  the 
tendency  once  established  could  not  but  lead  by  an  in- 
herent necessity  to  an  exploitation  of  Hebrew  history  and 
legend  in  the  interest  of  showing  various  fulfilments  in 
the  sayings  and  works  of  Jesus.  Strauss  shed  a  new  light 
upon  the  Gospels  when  he  showed  how  many  events 
recorded  in  them  have  their  prototypes  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  it  is  doubtless  an  error  to  regard  the  records 
of  the  evangelists  as  the  products  of  the  cool  reflection 
of  intentional  myth-makers.  Rather  they  show  how  these 
writers  had  become  accustomed  to  think  about  Jesus 
under  the  influence  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  idealize 

*  Gal.  v.  ii. 


328  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

actual  occurrences,  and  sometimes  to  intensify  them  into 
a  miraculous  form.  To  say  nothing  of  the  wholesale 
appropriation  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  poetry  in  the  pre- 
historical  portions  of  Luke's  Gospel  by  the  author  in 
sayings  ascribed  to  Mary  and  Simeon,  it  is  certainly  not 
without  significance  that  there  appear  so  evident  reminis- 
cences of  words  of  psalmists  and  prophets  in  the  accounts 
of  the  miracles  on  the  lake,  the  stilling  of  the  tempest 
and  the  walking  on  the  water.  In  some  of  the  accounts 
of  miracles  wrought  upon  external  nature  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  whether  an  actual  occurrence,  or  an  allegory  or 
parable,  lay  at  the  basis.  If  Luke  appears  to  have  found 
in  his  sources  the  cursing  of  the  fig-tree  as  a  parable,  it  is 
certainly  neither  incredible  nor  improbable  that  the  ac- 
count of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude  may  originally  have 
had  this  form.  Weizsacker's  arrangement  of  the  synoptic 
narratives  into  groups  of  doctrinal  tenets*  intended  to 
exhibit  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  as  they  historically 
were,  or  were  apprehended  to  be  from  an  idealistic  point 
of  view,  throws  much  light  upon  accounts  of  this  sort. 
"The  feeding  of  the  multitude  shows  Jesus  upon  the 
heights ;  he  assembles  the  people,  and  has  gifts  for  all ;  all 
are  filled."  f  The  natural  reaction  from  the  mythical 
theory  and  the  growing  influence  of  an  historical  appre- 
hension of  the  Gospels  have  led  even  conservative  critics 
to  recognize  a  mingling  of  history  and  idealizing  repre- 
sentations in  the  synoptic  narratives.  "  In  detail,"  says 
Holtzmann,  "  these  transitions  from  historical  recollection 
and  Old-Testament  legendary  form  can  scarcely  be  fol- 
lowed with  certainty.  Only  the  beginnings  and  ends  of 
the  entire  movement  can  still  be  established,  that  is,  the 

*  Lehrstiicke. 

f  Das  Apostolische  Zeitalter,  2te  Aufg.,  1890,  p.  411. 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES.  329 

support  which  a  legendary  representation  has  in  the 
events  of  the  actual  life  of  Jesus,  and  the  definite  direc- 
tion in  which,  in  consequence  of  guidance  supplied  by 
the  Old  Testament,  the  delineation  and  the  enhancement 
into  the  miraculous  must  proceed."  * 

How  far  the  demonstrable  " tendency"  of  the  evan- 
gelists affected  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospels  is  a 
question  of  importance  in  this  connection.  Very  much 
of  the  tendency  which  appears  in  the  Gospels  originated 
in  Messianism,  and  expresses  itself  in  the  attempt  to 
adjust  the  life  and  character  of  Jesus  to  the  Jewish- 
Messianic  ideal.  Jesus  being  believed  to  have  been  the 
Jewish  Messiah,  it  is  to  be  expected,  it  may  even  be  said 
to  be  inevitable,  that  his  tradition  would  assume  a  Mes- 
sianic coloring.  Then  by  a  modification  of  the  original 
Messianic  type  the  attempt  would  be  made  to  shorten 
the  distance  that  actually  separated  the  real  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  from  the  ideal  Messiah,  the  Son  of  David,  the 
King  of  Israel,  to  abolish  the  difference  between  them  as 
far  as  possible,  and  bring  them  into  a  unity  satisfactory  to 
thought.  It  is  evident  that  one  cannot  fairly  judge  such 
a  writing  as  our  first  Gospel,  for  example,  by  the  principle 
that  it  must  be  throughout  historical  or  not  historical  at 
all.  It  betrays  an  absence  of  historical  and  literary  sense 
to  apply  to  such  a  composition  the  rigid  rule,  falsus  in 
uno  falsus  in  omnibus.  If  the  tradition  out  of  which  it 
sprang  was  affected  by  dogmatic  tendencies,  by  pragma- 
tism, if  the  writer  was  affected  by  these,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  the  tradition  did  not  bear  the  truth,  and  the 
writer  record  it.  If  the  first  two  chapters  are  unhistorical, 
if  Jesus  did  not  announce  a  second  coming  on  the  clouds, 
and  if  the  dead  did  not  come  forth  from  their  graves  and 

*  Hand-Commentar  7,um  neuen  Testament,  1889,  i.  p.  19. 


330  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

walk  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  at  the  crucifixion,  it  does 
not  at  all  follow  that  Matthew's  logia  are  not  incorporated 
in  the  book,  and  that  the  parables  are  all  inventions. 
The  Zeit-Geist  has  much  to  reveal  to  men  if  they  would 
only  listen  to  him ;  but  if  men  can  hardly  interpret  the 
spirit  of  their  own  time,  it  is  no  wonder  that  that  of  past 
ages  with  difficulty  reaches  their  minds.  To  those  who 
are  deaf  to  the  revelations  which  the  Time-Spirit  of  the 
first  century  has  to  make,  and  blind  to  whatever  his  busy 
invention  wove  into  the  tradition  of  Jesus,  the  Gospels 
are  in  some  parts  written  in  an  unintelligible  language. 
They  are  not  fitted  to  be  interpreters  of  these  writings 
as  a  whole,  and  would  do  well  to  confine  their  reading  of 
them  to  the  parables  and  the  sermon  on  the  mount. 

It  is  evidently  of  the  greatest  importance  to  observe 
that  so  far  as  the  tendency  of  the  first  evangelist  led  him 
to  regard  the  history  of  Jesus  from  the  point  of  view  of 
Jewish  Messianism,  this  tendency  could  not,  and  in  fact 
did  not,  affect  the  essentials  of  the  history  as  he  has 
recorded  it.  The  narrative  contains  its  own  correction  in 
such  sayings  as  "  my  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world/'  and  in 
all  the  words  of  vast  spiritual  import  whose  authentication 
is  the  more  striking,  since  they  stand  out  in  bold  relief 
against  all  the  temporal  limitations  and  all  the  apocalyptic 
imagery  of  the  record.  The  correction  of  history  applied 
to  the  narrative  will  also  show  that  Jesus  was  in  no  sense 
the  national  Messiah  of  the  Jews.  Besides,  it  has  al- 
ready been  shown  that  the  hermeneutical  correction  when 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  passages  in  question  leads  to 
the  same  result.  The  remarkable  words  of  Baur  may 
well  be  quoted  here  :  "  All  the  concessions  which  must  be 
made  to  the  mythical  view,  as  well  as  all  that  which  may 
be  placed  to  the  account  of  the  evangelist's  pragmatism, 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES.  331 

can  in  no  way  put  in  question  the  substantial,  historical, 
fundamental  character  of  the  Gospel ;  and  there  follows 
hence  only  the  necessity  of  the  requirement  ever  more 
sharply  to  distinguish  as  much  as  possible  by  a  continu- 
ous critical  investigation  of  its  contents  the  two  elements, 
the  historical  and  the  unhistorical,  which  have  blended  in 
their  growth."  The  same  may  be  said  of  Luke's  Pauline 
tendency.  For  this  does  not  affect  the  essentials  of  the 
history.  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  and  an  interpretation  of  them  which  was 
made  in  the  first  century  in  the  exigencies  of  the  Pauline- 
Jewish  controversy.  If  anything  is  unquestionable  as  to 
the  character  of  his  teachings  it  is  that  they  were  intended 
for  mankind,  and  not  for  the  Jews  only,  that  they  were 
not  national  and  limited,  but  universal.  This  character, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  so  impressed  upon  the  logia  that  it  is 
clearly  discernible  even  in  the  Jewish  first  Gospel,  while 
the  third  evangelist  was  so  faithful  to  the  tradition  that 
he  appears  to  have  left  some  things  standing  in  his  record 
which  are  unfavorable  to  his  predilection. 

That  theophanies  and  angelophanies  do  not  belong  to 
the  domain  of  history  is  a  proposition  which  does  not 
require  demonstration  for  one  who  has  the  elements  of 
the  historical  sense.  To  treat  them  as  historically  verifia- 
ble is  as  unreasonable  as  to  hold  that  their  invalidation 
invalidates  the  entire  record  in  which  they  are  found. 
The  whole  scene  in  Gethsemane  does  not  even  become  a 
poetic  representation,  nor  the  words  spurious,  "  Pray, 
lest  ye  enter  into  temptation,"  because  Luke  brings  an 
angel  upon  the  scene.  The  angelophanies  in  the  account 
of  the  resurrection  do  not  convert  that  event  into  a 
myth,  any  more  than  the  story  of  the  resurrection  of  the 

*  "  Krit.  Untersuch.,  p.  604. 


332  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

saints  in  the  first  Gospel  renders  the  crucifixion  unhistori- 
cal.  If,  then,  the  divine  overshadowing  and  the  appear- 
ances of  angels  cast  suspicion  on  the  prehistorical  narra- 
tives of  the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus  in  the  first  and 
third  Gospels,  it  is  because  these  supernatural  phenomena 
constitute  a  part  of  the  texture  of  the  accounts.  These 
narratives  are,  however,  prejudiced  as  to  their  historical 
validity  by  the  absence  of  verification  and  by  internal 
improbabilities  and  incongruities.  They  are  not  con- 
tained in  the  oldest  and  most  historical  Gospel,  and 
formed  no  part  of  the  original  writing  by  Matthew.  The 
subsequent  history  far  from  confirming  tends  to  cast 
doubt  upon  them,  the  kernel  of  it  showing  no  trace  of 
this  "  wonder-world  of  the  childhood."  The  contempora- 
ries of  Jesus  know  him  as  the  carpenter's  son,  Joseph's 
son,  *  and  of  Mary  herself  is  recorded  no  intimation  of  a 
knowledge  of  the  mysterious  birth.  On  the  contrary,  sur- 
prised at  the  effects  of  his  ministry,  she  with  her  sons 
comes  to  Capernaum  to  get  possession  of  him  as  of  one 
who  was  "  beside  himself."  f  The  synoptists  represent 
Jesus  as  furnished  at  the  baptism  with  the  spirit  and 
power  requisite  for  his  ministry,  and  in  all  his  conflicts 
with  questioning,  opposing  enemies  he  never  refers  to  a 
birth-miracle  as  an  authentication  of  his  claims.  In  what 
is  said  of  him  by  Peter  in  the  Acts  and  by  Paul  in  his 
Epistles  there  is  no  hint  of  this  astounding  mystery  which 
could  not  have  failed  of  mention  and  comment  in  the 
earliest  writings  had  it  belonged  to  the  original  tradition. 
The  internal  incongruities  of  the  two  prehistorical 

*  Matt.  xiii.  55  ;  Luke  iv.  2-2. 

f  on  e^etfTrj,  Mark  iii.  21,  31.  The  two  passages  are  to  be  interpreted 
in  connection  as  relating  to  the  same  event.  See  Meyer,  *'  Commentar,"  i. 
2,  p.  49  f.  Cf.  John  vii.  3. 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES.  333 

accounts  indicate  a  legendary  origin  and  character.  In 
the  first  Gospel  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem  is  spoken 
of  as  though  that  city  were  the  residence  of  his  parents, 
and  Nazareth  is  mentioned  as  if  it  were  a  place  previously 
unknown  to  the  family,  in  which,  though  apparently  in- 
tending to  go  back  to  their  home  in  Judea  after  the  flight 
into  Egypt,  they  took  up  their  residence,  "  in  order  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled,"  etc.  The  author  appears  to  know 
nothing  of  the  previous  residence  in  Nazareth  from  which 
Luke's  narrative  proceeds.  According  to  Luke,  the  fam- 
ily returned  to  "  their  own  city  Nazareth  "  after  a  few 
weeks'  sojourn  in  Bethlehem  and  the  presentation  of  the 
child  in  the  temple,  which  does  not  appear  to  have  excited 
Herod's  suspicion  notwithstanding  the  Messianic  an- 
nouncements of  Anna  and  Simeon.  This  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  first  evangelist's  account,  which  requires  time 
here  for  the  journey  of  the  magians  from  the  East,  the 
flight  into  Egypt,  and  the  return.  The  order  of  Herod 
to  slay  all  the  children  "  from  two  years  old  and  under, 
according  to  the  time  which  he  had  ascertained  from  the 
magians,"  shows  the  time  required  by  this  account. 
Again,  the  first  evangelist's  account  of  Joseph's  sus- 
picions and  the  angelic  message  to  allay  them  does  not 
presuppose,  but  rather  excludes,  the  celestial  announce- 
ment to  Mary  which  Luke  records.  -For  that  Mary  after 
such  a  revelation  should  have  made  no  communication 
of  the  great  mystery  to  Joseph  would  be,  as  Meyer 
remarks,  "not  less  psychologically  unnatural  than  in 
violation  of  her  relation  and  duty  as  his  bride."  Psycho- 
logical and  moral  impossibilities  of  this  sort  are  the  work 
of  legend,  not  of  history.  In  the  one  instance  in  which 
Luke  appears  to  touch  really  historical  ground  he  com- 
mits an  error,  for  his  statement  that  there  was  an  imperial 


334  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

census  under  Quirinius  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus 
is  pronounced  incorrect  by  conservative  critics.*  The 
eminent  commentator  already  quoted  presents  the  whole 
section  of  the*  two  Gospels  from  the  right  point  of  view 
when  he  says  of  a  fragment  of  it :  "  The  truth  of  the 
story  of  the  shepherds  and  the  angels  lies 'in  the  realm  of 
the  idea,  not  in  that  of  historical  reality.  Regarded  as 
reality  the  history  loses  its  truth  as  a  premise,  with  which 
what  is  notorious  as  a  fact  that  Jesus  was  later  unknown 
and  unrecognized  as  the  Messiah,  as  well  as  the  entire 
silence  of  the  evangelic  preaching  with  respect  to  the 
heavenly  Gospel,  is  irreconcilable.  The  want  of  agree- 
ment of  this  account  with  the  story  of  the  magians  and 
the  murder  of  the  children  in  the  first  Gospel  is  to  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  different  wreaths  of  legend, 
quite  independent  of  one  another,  were  wound  about  the 
divine  Child  in  his  lowliness."  f 

These  prehistoric  chapters,  as  well  as  some  other  sec- 
tions of  the  Gospels,  can  only  be  rightly  apprehended 
when  we  take  into  account  the  oriental  aesthetic  and 
poetic  feeling  which  busied  itself  with  weaving  beautiful 
creations  of  fancy  into  the  wonderful  tradition  of  Jesus. 
Truly  interpreted  these  records  cannot  be  until  the  lit- 
erary sense  and  the  historical  judgment  have  done  their 
work  upon  them.  But  it  is  not  the  task  of  literary  and 
historical  criticism  to  cut  out  and  cast  aside  with  con- 
tempt these  fine  creations  of  poetic  sentiment,  the 
productions  of  the  love  and  devoutness  of  a  susceptible 
race  and  age.  Its  province  rather  it  is  to  assign  them 
their  true  place  and  to  estimate  them  at  their  true  value 
as  fragments  of  "  the  history  of  Christianity  rather  than 
of  the  history  of  Jesus."  If  it  be  true  that  "  a  religion 

*  "  Offenbar  unrichtig,"  Meyer.  f  Commentar,  i.  2,  p.  288. 


THE   GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES.  335 

without  poesy  were  an  abortion  incapable  of  life,"  then 
we  should  be  warned  to  retain  and  treat  these  aesthetic 
effusions  as  the  poetry  of  the  first  Christian  century  rather 
than  as  the  history  of  Jesus,  since  to  retain  and  treat 
them  as  history  is  to  run  the  risk  of  invalidating  the  his- 
torical kernel  itself  of  the  tradition.  Only  so,  too,  can 
their  spirit  be  appreciated  and  their  inspiring  mission 
fulfilled.  For  "  the  more  admiration  the  poetic  beauty  of 
these  productions  of  ancient  Christian  devoutness  de- 
serves and  has  found,  the  less  is  one  just  to  their  spirit 
when  one  endeavors  to  transform  them  into  prose  at  the 
cost  of  the  odor  of  wonder  which  the  morning  mists  of 
the  evangelic  history  have  distilled  upon  them."  * 

The  foregoing  considerations  establish  the  maxim  of 
criticism  that  the  evangelists'  accounts  of  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus  must  often  be  corrected,  not  only  by  a 
comparison  of  them  with  one  another,  but  also  by  a  judg- 
ment based  upon  an  historical  knowledge  of  the  influences 
acting  upon  the  tradition  from  the  media  through  which 
it  passed.  The  complete  illustration  and  defence  of  this 
maxim  would  require  an  entire  commentary  upon  the 
Gospels.  But  the  history  of  commentaries  shows  but  too 
clearly  that  only  its  application  can  put  an  end  to  the 
puerile  harmonizing  and  exegetical  subtleties  which  have 
so  long  discredited  hermeneutical  science.  The  true  his- 
torical character  of  the  Gospels  is  only  brought  to  light 
when  this  principle  is  applied  to  them.  Sometimes  it 
shows  the  influence  of  a  belief  dominating  an  entire 
generation,  as  in  the  form  given  to  the  eschatological 
discourses ;  sometimes  a  design  on  the  part  of  an  evan- 
gelist, as  when  Luke  makes  Jesus  begin  his  ministry 
at  Nazareth  instead  of  at  Capernaum  in  order  that  the 

*  Holtzmann,  Hand-Commentar,  i.  p.  54. 


336  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

Pauline  traits  which  he  inserts  may  receive  a  greater 
intensity  * ;  sometimes  an  ineptness,  as  when  the  same 
writer  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  violent  words  against 
the  Pharisees  at  the  table  of  one  of  this  sect ;  f  and  some- 
times a  transformation  of  an  ethical  doctrine,  as  when  the 
morality  of  Jesus  which  taught  a  lofty  contempt  of  re- 
ward, that  one  is  not  even  to  expect  thanks  for  doing 
one's  duty,^:  and  that  help  should  be  extended  without 
hope  of  anything  "  in  return,"  §  is  disfigured  by  an  en- 
couragement of  calculating  self-interest  which  shall  find 
its  account  in  "  houses,  lands,"  etc.,  in  a  high  place  at  a 
feast,  in  a  place  at  the  "  right  hand,"  in  sitting  upon 
"  thrones,"  in  recompense  "  at  the  resurrection  of  the 
just."  The  objection  that  this  maxim  is  subjective,  and 
leads  to  results  which  vary  according  to  the  caprice  of  the 
interpreter,  is  without  force  in  view  of  the  arbitrariness 
and  caprice  of  the  old  interpretation  and  its  infinitely 
varying  and  contradictory  conclusions.  The  result  of  a 
century's  critical  investigation  of  the  Gospels,  the  criti- 
cism of  the  present  and  of  the  future  cannot  abandon 
it,  nor  shrink  from  its  thorough  application.  The  charge 
touching  its  conclusions  really  lies  not  against  it,  but 
against  the  nature  of  the  material  with  which  it  has 
to  deal.  Only  through  it  do  we  learn  at  length  the  real 
character,  and  come  to  appreciate  the  worth  of  the  Gospels 
as  histories. 

*  Luke  iv.  16,  24-27.  \  Luke  xvii.  7-10. 

f  Luke  xi.  37-52.  §  Luke  vi.  35. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

CRITICISM  AND   HISTORICAL   CHRISTIANITY. 

THAT  criticism  tends  to  invalidate  historical  Chris- 
tianity is  a  prevalent  popular  impression.  But 
like  many  another  popular  impression,  this  is  a  popular 
misapprehension.  A  prejudice,  or  perhaps  it  were  better 
to  say  a  sentiment,  is  the  root  of  this  error.  What  is 
established,  what  is  venerable  with  age,  what  has  served 
noble  ends,  and  nurtured  great  virtues,  naturally  calls 
forth  the  conservative  interest,  the  devotion,  even  the 
zeal  and  fanaticism  of  mankind.  Accordingly,  when  even 
the  soberest  and  most  reverent  criticism  is  directed  upon 
revered  documents  or  institutions  with  the  sincere  purpose 
of  reconstructing  the  one  or  improving  the  other,  it  is 
confronted  by  a  sentiment  which  can  see  in  its  performance 
only  a  menace  or  a  work  of  destruction.  Against  a  criti- 
cism which  is  merely  negative  and  destructive,  it  must  be 
conceded  that  this  sentiment  is  a  wise  provision  of  nature. 
It  is  not,  however,  until  the  discriminating  judgment  is 
applied  to  the  matter  that  a  justifiable  opposition  to  the 
critical  procedure  can  even  seem  to  be  established.  Now, 
at  the  first  glance  there  does  appear,  indeed,  to  be  ground 
for  a  rational  judgment  against  criticism  as  hostile  to 
historical  Christianity,  for  the  reason  that  in  its  name 
many  excesses  have  been  committed,  and  many  conclu- 
sions reached  which  tend  to  dissolve  the  historical  con- 
tents of  the  Gospels  by  making  it  appear  that  these 
22  337 


3  3  8  GOSPEL-  CRI TICISM. 

writings  are  composed  mainly  of  myths,  or  of  creations  of 
the  imagination,  or  of  "  tendency-"  speculations.  But  it  is 
evident  that  criticism,  as  a  whole,  can  no  more  fairly  be 
condemned  for  its  excesses  than  science  or  theology,  as  a 
whole,  for  its  errors.  Besides,  criticism  has  always  tended 
to  correct  itself,  exposing  and  repudiating  the  errors 
which  have  been  committed  in  its  name.  Great  critics 
have  alone  been  found  competent  to  deal  with  the  most 
masterly  perversions  of  criticism.  So  Strauss  had  his 
Weisse,  and  Baur  his  Hilgenfeld  within  his  own  school, 
and  his  Ewald  and  Meyer  outside  it.  Accordingly,  the 
history  of  criticism  shows  a  tendency  towards  quite  sober 
and  sound  conclusions,  a  tendency,  in  fact,  to  construct 
rather  than  to  destroy,  to  establish  rather  than  to  over- 
throw, historical  Christianity. 

Now,  since  criticism  proceeds  upon  the  principle  that 
the  Gospels  are  to  be  treated  as  literature,  as  productions 
of  men  affected  by  the  spirit  which  came  forth  from 
Jesus,  indeed,  but  also  by  the  influences  which  their  age 
threw  around  them,  who  dealt  with  their  materials  in 
a  wholly  sincere  and  earnest  way,  it  must  seek  the  grounds 
of  the  credibility  of  the  historical  kernel  of  these  writings, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  basis  of  historical  Christianity,  in 
the  documents  themselves  and  in  the  data  which  history 
furnishes.  No  other  course  is  indeed  open  to  it,  since  it  is 
one  of  its  fundamental  principles  that  no  claims  which 
may  be  dogmatically  set  up  in  favor  of  the  infallibility  of 
the  writers  of  the  Gospels  can  be  allowed  before  they 
have  been  tested  by  its  processes.  Such  claims,  then, 
cannot  be  suffered  to  determine  its  conclusions.  In  fact, 
if  it  should  admit  them  its  occupation  would  be  gone,  its 
whole  work  superfluous.  With  respect  to  the  historical 
basis  internal  to  the  Gospels,  it  has  already  been  shown  in 


CRITICISM  AND   HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.      339 

the  course  of  this  work,  how  that  is  supplied  in  the  Mark- 
hypothesis  and  in  the  hypothesis  of  the  logia-collection  of 
Matthew.  These  hypotheses  may  be  regarded  as  estab- 
lished, if  not  beyond  question,  at  least  by  the  preponder- 
ance of  critical  authority.  As  to  another  series  of  logia 
originating  with  John  and  incorporated  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  there  is  a  strong  probability  as  well  as  a  consider- 
able weight  of  critical  judgment  in  its  favor.  Criticism 
might,  then,  very  well  rest  its  case  upon  these  conclu- 
sions, and  await  the  impartial  judgment  of  mankind  as  to 
its  friendly  or  hostile  relation  to  historical  Christianity. 
There  are,  however,  important  evidences  independent  of 
the  Gospels  which  may  properly  be  adduced  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  critical  conclusions  regarding  the  essential 
historical  contents  of  these  records. 

The  apostle  Paul  is  a  pre-eminent  witness  to  the 
central  facts  which  the  Gospels  record.  For  it  were 
certainly  an  error  to  think  that  his  claim  that  he  had  his 
Gospel  by  special  revelation,  that  he  "  did  not  receive 
it  from  man/'  and  that  "  those  in  reputation  communi- 
cated nothing  new  "  *  to  him,  excludes  all  knowledge  on 
his  part  of  the  leading  external  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
and  of  the  substance  of  his  teaching.  Rather  these  words 
relate  to  his  own  peculiar  interpretation  of  Christianity, 
the  fundamental  doctrinal  tenets  which  he  held,  the  uni- 
versal mission  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  and  justification  by 
faith.  It  cannot  be  presumed  that  even  before  his  con- 
version he  had  no  information  as  to  the  character  of  the 
doctrine  which  he  bitterly  persecuted.  A  man  of  his 
earnestness  could  not  have  persecuted  a  phantom.  Neither 
could  he  have  been  converted  without  evidence.  How- 
ever the  event  on  the  road  to  Damascus  may  be  ex- 

*  Gal.  i.  12,  ii.  6. 


340  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

plained,  there  is  certainly  nothing  in  his  intense  and  vivid 
narration  of  it,  which  necessarily  excluded  details,  that 
should  lead  us  to  suppose  that  it  had  no  psychological 
antecedents,  no  -preparation  of  meditation,  of  remorse,  of 
conviction.  Convictions  he  certainly  had  from  that  time, 
and  very  positive  ones.  He  was  convinced  that  the  man 
Jesus  who  had  been  rejected  and  slain  as  a  malefactor  by 
the  Jews  was  the  Christ,  his  own  Saviour  and  the  Saviour 
of  the  world.  He  believed  that  in  this  great  personality 
a  new  principle  of  life  was  revealed  for  himself  and  for 
mankind.  Perhaps  no  stronger  testimony  could  be  fur- 
nished, has  ever  been  furnished,  to  the  power  of  that 
personality,  to  its  historical  reality  as  portrayed  in  the 
Gospels,  than  that  this  man  Paul,  this  Jew  of  the  Jews, 
yielded  to  it  the  homage  of  his  great  intellect,  bowed  his 
strong  will  to  the  man  of  Nazareth,  became  the  unwearied 
and  zealous  minister  of  the  Gospel  which  he  had  perse- 
cuted, and  consecrated  to  it  all  the  resources  of  his 
powerful  nature,  through  privations,  perils,  stripes,  even  to 
death. 

Not  a  few  of  the  central  historical  facts  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels  are  expressly  referred  to  by  Paul.  According  to 
him,  Jesus  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David,  born  under  the 
law,  was  a  "  man,"  was  "  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh." 
He  was  conscious  of  no  sin,  was  obedient  to  the  divine 
will  even  unto  death,  and  was  filled  with  the  spirit  of 
holiness.  Of  especial  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  he  men- 
tions the  last  supper  and  the  betrayal ;  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  not  comprehended  by  the  authorities  of  his  time,  and 
that  before  them  he  was  outwardly  weak ;  his  inner  joy  in 
affliction  and  his  devotion  to  death  out  of  love  to  man : 
his  passion  and  crucifixion  as  "  our  passover,"  and  the 
crowning  spiritual  event  which  followed  it,  and  consti- 


CRITICISM  AND  HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.      34! 

tuted  one  of  the  central  ideas  of  the  Pauline  theology. 
Of  some  wonderful  works  wrought  by  Jesus  Paul  must 
also  have  known,  as  may  legitimately  be  inferred  from  the 
facts  that  he  recognized  healing  as  among  the  spiritual 
gifts  in  the  Christian  Church  of  his  time,  and  that  he  ap- 
pealed to  "  signs,  wonders,  and  mighty  deeds  "  performed 
by  himself  as  "  signs  of  an  apostle."  The  various  gifts 
are  to  him  manifestations  of  the  Spirit  which  gives  the 
word  of  wisdom,  of  knowledge,  of  faith,  of  prophecy,  of 
healing.  But  to  him  the  Lord,  or  Jesus,  is  the  Spirit  who 
now  works  these  minor  wonders  in  and  through  the  be- 
lievers, and  also  the  greater  wonder  of  changing  them 
"into  the  same  image  from  glory  to  glory."  Though 
Paul  stands  forth  in  grand  isolation  and  self-dependence 
in  the  history  of  the  primitive  Church,  we  learn  from  his 
writings  that  he  was  not  without  intercourse  with  men 
who  had  personally  known  Jesus.  That  he  learned  noth- 
ing of  them  concerning  the  prominent  facts  of  the  earthly 
life  of  his  Master  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 
Three  years  after  his  conversion,  he  tells  us,  he  went  to 
Jerusalem  and  remained  with  Peter  fifteen  days.  Four- 
teen years  later  he  again  visited  Jerusalem  and  held  a 
conference  with  some  of  the  apostles.  His  recognition 
by  the  apostles  of  Jesus  as  a  missionary  to  the  gentiles  is 
an  indirect  testimony  in  favor  of  the  presumption  that  he 
was  instructed  in  the  essentials  of  Christian  knowledge 
and  faith. 

Besides  an  acquaintance  with  facts  of  the  history  of 
Jesus,  such  as  that  he  had  twelve  apostles,  Paul  shows  a 
knowledge  of  the  tradition  of  his  teachings  as  recorded  in 
the  Gospels.  There  are  quotations  of  them,  references  to 
them,  and  certain  accords  with  them  in  his  writings.  With 
respect  to  divorce  he  gives  a  free  quotation  as  a  "  com- 


342  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

mand "  of  the  "  Lord,"*  and  says  that  the  Lord  "  or- 
dained "  that  "  those  who  preach  the  Gospel  should  live 
from  the  Gospel."  The  great  doctrine  of  Jesus  that  the 
substance  of  the  law  is  love  finds  an  accordant  expression 
in  Paul's  words  that  the  whole  law  is  fulfilled  in  one  com- 
mandment :  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 
The  words,  "  Being  reviled,  we  bless ;  being  persecuted, 
we  endure  it ;  being  defamed,  we  intreat " ;  the  saying 
about  faith  which  might  remove  mountains ;  the  admoni- 
tion to  render  no  one  evil  for  evil,  should  be  referred  to 
the  tradition  of  Jesus  as  their  most  natural  and  probable 
source,  especially  since  Paul  frequently  appeals  expressly 
to  '*  the  word  of  the  Lord "  as  authority  for  certain 
teachings. 

The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  who  was 
probably  a  contemporary  of  the  synoptists,  presents  along 
with  some  speculative  traits  confirmations  of  the  tradition 
known  to  them.  He  speaks  of  Jesus  as  "made  in  all 
respects  like  to  his  brethren,"  a  "  partaker  of  flesh  and 
blood,"  being  "  able  to  be  forbearing  towards  the  ignorant 
and  the  erring,"  himself  "  compassed  with  infirmity,"  "  in 
all  points  tempted  as  man,  yet  without  sin,"  offering  up 
"  in  the  days  of  his  flesh "  "  prayers  and  supplications, 
with  strong  crying  and  tears,"  though  a  son,  yet  "  learn- 
ing his  obedience  from  what  he  suffered,"  and  "being 
perfected,  becoming  the  author  of  everlasting  salvation." 
From  other  contemporary  Christian  documents  abundant 
confirmations  of  the  essential,  historical  features  of  the 
personality  and  teaching  of  Jesus  as  they  are  set  forth  in 
the  synoptic  records  might  be  produced.  They  all  tend 
to  show  the  transforming  power  of  the  fruitful  principles 
of  life  and  religion  which  came  into  the  world  through  the 

*  I.  Cor.  vi.  10,  II. 


CRITICISM  AND  HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.      343 

great  Teacher,  "  the  inner  law  of  love  to  God  and  man, 
which  subjects  all  human  relations  to  its  exalting  and 
purifying  influence,  and  unites  all  who  receive  it  in  a  great 
community  of  the  spirit."  The  great  spiritual  transforma- 
tion which  this  doctrine  was  regarded  as  effecting  is  set 
forth  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus  :  "  For  the  grace  of  God  that 
bringeth  salvation  to  all  men  was  manifested,  teaching  us 
that  denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts  we  should  live 
soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in  the  present  world ; 
looking  for  the  blessed  hope  and  appearing  of  the  glory 
of  the  great  God  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who 
gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all 
iniquity,  and  purify  to  himself  a  people  to  be  his  own, 
zealous  in  good  works." 

Criticism  appears,  then,  on  its  own  grounds  and  by  its 
own  methods  to  contribute  to  the  confirmation  of  histori- 
cal Christianity,  if  to  establish  the  general  credibility  of 
the  synoptic  Gospels  as  to  the  essential  teachings  and  the 
character  of  Jesus  be  to  do  this.  It  must  be  acknowl- 
edged, however,  that  if  by  historical  Christianity  is  meant 
the  whole  body  of  doctrines,  or  a  certain  considerable 
number  of  them,  which  have  been  and  are  taught  in  the 
name  of  Christianity,  then  criticism  does  not  give  it  sup- 
port. If  it  is  made  to  include  such  doctrines  as  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  records,  original  sin,  total  depravity,  the 
trinity,  imputed  righteousness,  a  vicarious  atonement,  and 
endless  punishment,  then  so  far  criticism  is  unfriendly  to 
it.  If,  however,  it  means  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  lived; 
that  he  was  a  personality  of  unsurpassed  moral  and 
spiritual  greatness;  that  he  taught  a  morality  and  re- 
ligion founded  upon  the  doctrine  that  God  is  the  Father 
of  men,  and  all  men  are  brothers,  the  central,  practical 
precept  of  which  was  love  to  God  and  man  ;  that  he  lived 


344  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

a  blameless,  worshipful  life  of  consecration  and  service  in 
which  his  great  teachings  were  eminently  illustrated  ;  that 
he  performed  some  works  which  in  his  age  were  regarded 
as  wonders ;  that  after  an  amazing  and  brilliant  career  of 
a  few  months  in  Galilee  he  was  crucified  at  Jerusalem; 
and  that  he  was  thereupon  in  some  way  manifested  to 
those  who  had  loved  and  followed  him  as  victorious  over 
death  ;  if  these  are  the  essential  contents  of  historical 
Christianity,  then  it  finds  in  criticism  not  an  opposing  and 
destructive  agent,  but  a  helpful  ally.  The  relation  which 
some  of  the  important  conclusions  of  criticism  hold  to  it 
remains  to  be  considered. 

The  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  Gospels  shows  that 
these  writings  were  exposed  to  the  fortune  which  has 
attended  all  the  literary  productions  of  ancient  times  ; 
that  the  autographs  were  early  lost ;  that  the  text  was 
corrupted  and  interpolated  ;  that  a  considerable  time 
elapsed  between  their  composition  and  the  appearance  of 
careful  and  accurate  quotations  of  them,  during  which  the 
changes  to  which  the  text  was  subjected  are  indeterminable ; 
that  there  appears  to  be  no  reason  for  assuming  that  a  re- 
gard for  them  as  other  than  human  productions  preserved 
them  from  the  perils  to  which  they  were  exposed,  nor 
any  grounds  for  believing  in  a  divine  intervention  for 
their  protection  ;  that,  however,  alterations,  corruptions, 
and  interpolations  have  not,  in  all  probability,  materially 
affected  their  essential,  historical  contents — that  is,  their 
accounts  of  the  great  teachings  of  Jesus  and  their  repre- 
sentation of  his  life  and  character.  These  results  are  not 
prejudicial  to  historical  Christianity  ;  for  if  Christianity  is 
properly  called  historical — that  is,  a  religion  which  has 
had  a  history,  its  development  belongs  to  the  ordinary 
course  of  human  affairs,  and  no  supernatural  intervention 


CRITICISM  AND  HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.     345 

can  be  assumed  in  its  interest,  such  as  would  be  a  miracu- 
lous preservation  of  its  documents  against  the  common 
fortune  of  ancient  writings. 

The  critical  study  of  the  canon  of  the  Gospels  shows 
them  in  the  stream  of  human  history  amidst  a  great 
number  of  other  writings  to  which  the  powerful  impulse 
proceeding  from  the  personality  of  Jesus  gave  rise,  left  to 
make  their  way  to  public  recognition  chiefly  by  their  own 
merits.  It  finds  that,  along  with  the  oral  tradition  and 
these  other  writings,  they  were  for  a  considerable  time 
regarded  as  ordinary  human  sources  of  information  as  to 
the  life  of  Jesus ;  that  this  tradition  was  thought  by  an 
important  witness  near  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
to  be  an  authority  superior  to  them  ;  that  down  to  a 
period  which  marks  the  lapse  of  nearly  one  hundred  years 
from  the  composition  of  the  oldest  of  them  they  were 
loosely  and  inaccurately  quoted  without  mention  of  their 
supposed  authors ;  that  they  appear  to  have  attained  •/. 
recognition  largely  by  reason  of  internal  qualities,  their  / 
historical  character,  and  general  excellence  in  comparison  ' 
with  other  similar  writings ;  that  the  opinion  prevailed  in 
the  primitive  Church  that  believers  in  Jesus  were  in  gen- 
eral inspired,  and  that  no  especial  inspiration  was  supposed 
to  be  possessed  by  those  who  wrote  ;  that  other  writings 
than  those  now  contained  in  the  New  Testament  were 
then  believed  by  some  to  be  inspired  ;  that  not  until 
about  the  end  of  the  second  century  were  our  four  Gos- 
pels ascribed  to  their  reputed  authors,  and  recognized  as 
the  works  of  specially  inspired  men  which  were  to  be  re- 
ceived as  exclusive  or  canonical  sources  for  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus  ;  that  the  dogma  of  the  inspiration  of 
these  writers,  resting  on  no  claim  made  by  them  in  their 
works  is  to  be  regarded  simply  as  a  dogma  which  had  an 


346  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

historical  development,  and  admits  of  a  genetic  explana- 
tion ;  that  the  traditions  current  in  the  second  century 
respecting  the  origin  of  the  Gospels  must  be  critically 
sifted,  and  are  to  be  accepted  only  when  confirmed  by 
the  criticism  of  these  writings  themselves  ;  and  finally, 
that  the  writers  of  that  century,  commonly  quoted  as 
"  witnesses  "  to  the  canon,  often  give  no  reasons,  or  only 
trivial  ones,  for  their  opinions,  show  little  or  no  evidence 
of  having  critically  examined  the  matter,  and  accordingly 
furnish  testimony  which  is  to  be  received  only  with  cau- 
tion and  discrimination.  These  are  precisely  such  phe- 
nomena as  one  would  expect  to  find  in  the  natural, 
historical  development  of  a  religion  under  the  conditions 
of  the  age  in  question  ;  and  they  are  rather  favorable 
than  otherwise  to  historical  Christianity,  since  they  show 
its  records  to  have  come  to  recognition  and  authority  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  events  on  their  intrinsic  merits, 
and  accordingly  to  have  been  able  to  dispense  with  a 
divine  supervision  to  determine  their  selection  as  canoni- 
cal. The  question  of  the  inspiration  of  their  writers  is 
ttot  vital  to  historical  Christianity,  for  their  infallibility 
was  not  necessary  to  insure  general  accuracy  and  credi- 
bility in  their  works,  which  is  all  that  a  system  of  belief 
calling  itself  historical  can  reasonably  claim  for  its  docu- 
ments. So  far,  then,  as  criticism  tends  to  establish  such 
an  accuracy  and  credibility  in  the  essential  contents  of 
the  Gospels,  it  comes  to  the  support  of  historical  Chris- 
tianity, and  sustains  its  claims  in  the  only  way  in  which 
they  can  be  sustained.  For  if  Christianity  is  based  upon 
the  assumption  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  writers  of  its 
records,  it  is  likely  to  be  rejected  entirely  when  this 
assumption  is  found,  as  sooner  or  later  it  must  be,  to  be 
unsupported  by  the  facts  in  the  case. 


CRITICISM  AND  HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.      347 

The  results  of  the  critical  study  of  the  synoptic  problem 
and  the  synoptic  Gospels  go  to  show  that  these  writings 
are  precisely  such  attempts  at  historical  composition  as 
one  would  look  for  under  the  existing  conditions,  which 
were  an  original  Gospel  and  a  logia-document,  an  abun- 
dant and  varying  oral  tradition,  writers  with  different 
points  of  view,  Messianic  beliefs,  tendencies,  apocalyptic 
expectations,  a  predilection  for  aesthetic  and  poetic  repre- 
sentations, and  a  disinclination  to  critical  and  historical 
investigation.  Writings  so  produced  could  not  but  pre- 
sent agreements  and  contradictions,  correct  statements  and 
inaccuracies,  historical  and  unhistorical  elements,  loose 
connections,  transpositions,  and  a  want  of  chronological 
arrangement.  They  might  also  be  expected  to  contain 
the  essential  historical  facts  of  the  tradition  of  the  life  and 
teaching  of  Jesus,  if  we  assume,  as  we  must,  the  sincerity, 
good  sense,  and  earnest  purpose  of  their  writers.  This 
threefold  form  of  the  common  tradition  of  Jesus  furnishes 
to  historical  Christianity  a  substantial  basis,  which  is  not 
invalidated  by  the  conclusions  of  criticism  respecting  the 
origin  of  apocalyptic  portions  of  it,  or  with  regard  to  the 
hermeneutical  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  employed 
by  the  writers,  or  concerning  tendencies  and  Messianic 
hopes.  The  conclusion  that  no  one  of  the  synoptics  was 
immediately  written  by  an  apostle  does  not  overthrow 
their  historical  credibility,  since  it  is  not  essential  to  the 
integrity  of  history  that  it  should  be  recorded  by  the 
original  witnesses  to  the  facts.  The  results  of  the  criti- 
cism of  the  first  Gospel  place  it,  then,  on  the  same  footing 
with  the  second  and  third  in  relation  to  the  sources  of  the 
history. 

Since,  then,  historical  Christianity  is  not  based  upon 
the  immediate  apostolic  authorship  of  any  one  or  all  of 


348  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

the  four  Gospels,  the  criticism  cannot  be  hostile  to  it, 
which  concludes  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  the  work 
of  the  apostle  John.  The  historical  ground  of  the  begin- 
nings of  Christianity  is  securely  established  in  the  common 
tradition  of  the  synoptics ;  and  so  far  as  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  recognized  this  tradition  by  in  part  found- 
ing his  work  upon  it,  he  has  strengthened  it  by  a  confir- 
mation which  was  perhaps  more  than  half  a  century  later 
than  the  composition  of  the  oldest  of  these  writings.  It 
would  probably  be  incorrect  to  say  that  in  every  instance 
in  which  he  departs  from  the  synoptic  tradition  he  writes 
romance  and  not  history,  for  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  synoptists  have  recorded  all  the  historical  facts 
of  the  life  of  Jesus.  But  it  is  evident  that  his  speculative 
ideas  about  the  nature  and  pre-existence  of  Jesus  and  con- 
siderable portions  of  the  long  discourses  which  constitute 
the  greater  part  of  his  record  are  not  history.  They 
cannot  be  made  to  appear  to  be  of  capital  importance 
without  the  gratuitous  assumption  of  his  infallible  inspira- 
tion as  a  philosopher  and  a  reproducer  from  memory. 
The  importance  of  his  work  is  no  doubt  very  greatly  en- 
hanced if  he  has  incorporated  into  it  some  Johannine 
logia  of  Jesus ;  but  its  utility  is  not  to  be  estimated 
entirely  by  its  conformity  to  an  historical  standard,  since 
it  is  not  without  importance  for  the  conception  of  Jesus 
and  the  understanding  of  his  personality  and  his  tradition 
to  know  how  a  man  of  great  intelligence  and  spirituality 
living  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  apprehended 
him  in  relation  to  the  questions  of  that  time.  With  re- 
gard to  apostolic  origin,  then,  this  Gospel  appears  to  be 
upon  the  same  basis  as  the  others. 

It  would  appear,  then,  in  view  of   the  results  of  the 
criticism  of   the  Gospels  which  has  been  carried  on  for 


CRITICISM  AND   HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.      349 

more  than  one  hundred  years  by  men  who,  far  from  being 
hostile  to  Christianity,  have  been  and  are  devout  be- 
lievers in  its  inspired  Founder  and  consecrated  followers 
of  him,  that  some  concessions  must  be  made  to  this 
science  by  the  advocates  of  traditional  opinions  and  in- 
terpretations, just  as  in  other  departments  of  human 
knowledge  tradition  has  been  obliged  to  give  way  to 
scientific  investigation.  Unless  the  insight  and  reason  of 
a  multitude  of  the  greatest  minds  that  have  adorned  the 
Christian  Church  are  altogether  perverted  ;  unless  con- 
clusions which  have  maintained  their  ground,  and  are  still 
acquiring  wider  recognition  after  having  been  discussed 
and  contested  for  a  century,  are  futile  and  abortive  ;  unless 
the  dogmatic  assumption  which  takes  the  Gospels  out  of 
the  category  of  historical  writings  is  better  grounded  than 
the  science  of  history  which  must  include  all  historical 
phenomena  in  order  to  be  a  science  ;  and  unless  the  pro- 
testations of  the  timid  are  to  outweigh  with  mankind  the 
voice  of  the  masters  ;  then  is  criticism  destined  to  have 
at  length  its  rights  and  its  empire.  The  maxim  of  criti- 
cism laid  down  in  the  preceding  chapter,*  applied  from 
the  point  of  view  of  historical  criticism,  which  regards  the 
Gospels  as  products  of  their  times  under  the  influences 
which  proceeded  from  the  inspiring  personality  and  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  these  writings 
contain  unhistorical  elements  of  various  kinds.  There  are 
mistakes  which  result  from  a  misunderstanding,  an  error 
of  memory,  or  ignorance  of  history.f  Different  accounts 
are  combined  into  one,  or  the  same  is  given  twice.  \  It  is 

*  Seepage  335. 

f  The  two  beasts  of  the  entry  into  Jerusalem,  Matt.  xxi.  2-5,  cf.  Mark 
xi.  2-4,  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  prophecy,  Zech.  ix.  9  ;  and  the  state- 
ment of  Luke  regarding  Quirinius,  ii.  2. 

\  The   two  demoniacs   at    Gadara,    a  comparison   of   the  texts  showing 


35°  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

found  to  be  a  characteristic  of  tradition  to  enhance  events 
and  effects,  *  and  to  transform  parables  and  parabolic 
sayings  into  facts.f  Spiritual  are  transformed  into  physi- 
cal facts  and  events,  as  the  ethical  divine  sonship  of  Jesus 
into  a  supernatural  physical  generation,  the  consciousness 
of  this  sonship  and  of  the  approval  of  God  into  an  ex- 
ternal announcement  at  the  baptism,  J  and  his  internal 
conflict  into  an  objective  occurrence  in  the  temptation. 
Historical  narratives  are  constructed  to  represent  what 
was  in  the  consciousness  of  the  primitive  Church  as  to  the 
dignity  of  Jesus  and  the  effects  which  would  follow  from 
his  mission,  as  the  account  of  his  transfiguration  to  set 
forth  his  glory  in  relation  to  Moses  and  Elias,  the  rending 
of  the  veil  of  the  temple  to  symbolize  that  by  his  death 
admittance  to  God  was  opened  to  all,  and  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  saints  to  indicate  that  to  the  pious  of  old 
times  he  was  the  resurrection  and  the  life.  The  present 
is  sometimes  read  back,  so  to  speak,  into  the  past,  or  the 
accounts  of  events  in  his  life  and  the  reports  of  words  of 
Jesus  are  colored  by  a  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the 
evangelist  of  events  and  institutions  of  his  own  time.  A 
case  of  I'aticinium  post  eventum  is  furnished,  for  example, 

probably  a  combination  of  Mark  i.  23  f.  and  v.  I  f.  ;  the  instructions  to  the 
twelve  blended  with  those  to  the  seventy  in  the  tradition,  Luke  ix.  I  f.,  x.  I 
f.  ;  and  the  twofold  account  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude,  Mark  vi.  31  f., 
viii.  i  f. 

*  The  number  of  healings,  Matt.  xv.  30  f.,  cf.  Mark  vii.  32-37  ;  the 
struggle  in  Gethsemane,  Luke  xxii.  40-45,  cf.  Mark  xiv.  35-39  ;  and  the 
parable,  Matt.  xxii.  2-10,  cf.  Luke  xiv.  16-24. 

f  The  preaching  of  the  Gospel  is  compared  to  fishing,  and  the  kingdom  of 
God  to  a  net,  Mark  i.  17,  Matt.  xiii.  47  ;  but  in  Luke  v.  2  f.  a  miraculous 
draught  of  fishes  is  recorded.  This  must  also  pass  for  Luke's  modified  and 
legendary  account  of  the  calling  of  Peter  ;  cf.  Mark  i.  16-20  ;  Matt.  iv. 
18-22. 

\  Matt.  iii.  16,  17. 


CRITICISM  AND   HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.      35 1 

in  Luke's  detailed  account  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. *  The  same  writer  represents  the  last  supper  as  a 
formal  establishment  of  a  rite,  following  Paul's  account  of 
it  rather  than  the  simpler  one  of  the  first  two  evange- 
lists, f  and  the  formula -of  baptism  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19  is 
of  doubtful  originality.  The  religious  tendencies  and 
apologetic  necessities  of  later  times  have  induced  modifi- 
cations of  and  additions  to  the  original  tradition,  some  of 
which  have  already  been  pointed  out.  \ 

Yet  if  one  will  consider  one  cannot  but  see  that  this 
discrimination  between  historical  and  unhistorical  com- 
ponents, this  critical  reconstruction,  does  not  invalidate 
the  essentials  of  the  Gospel-history.  Rather  the  result  of 
the  process  is  that  they  are  relieved  in  greater  distinctness 
and  grandeur.  The  real  criticism  of  the  Gospels,  the 
criticism  that  has  stood  the  test  of  a  long  and  fierce  con- 
flict, and  is  sure  to  make  its  way  finally  to  general  recog- 
nition in  the  Church,  is  conservative  and  constructive.  It 
establishes  the  kernel  of  the  history  of  Jesus  in  an  inex- 
pugnable position.  Having  cleared  the  ground  and  shown 
the  point  at  which  Christianity  must  be  assailed,  if  assailed 
at  all,  it  erects  around  it  impregnable  defences.  The 
religion  which  it  sets  forth  and  commends  to  mankind  is 
the  religion  of  Jesus  in  its  original  simplicity  and  purity. 
An  "  emasculated  Christianity,"  if  it  be  proper  to  speak 
at  all  of  such  a  thing,  is  not  the  product  of  its  reconstruc- 
tion, but  of  the  construction  of  the  first  century.  When 

*  Chap.  xix.  43  f.,  xxi.  24. 

\  Chap.  xxii.  19,  cf.  Mark  xiv.  22  f.  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  26.  f. 

\  See  besides,  Luke's  addition  to  the  saying  about  hew  wine  in  old  skins 
(chap.  v.  39,  cf.  Mark  ii.  21  f. ;  Matt.  ix.  16  f.),  which  is  inappropriate  to  the 
connection,  indicates  the  disinclination  of  the  Jewish  Christians  to  the  new 
doctrine,  and  can  have  originated  only  in  the  time  of  gentile  Christianity. 
Weizsacker,  Das  apostol.  Zeitalter,  p.  390. 


352  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

by  the  application  of  its  own  processes  in  a  truly  scientific 
way  the  excesses  and  errors  of  criticism  have  been  cor- 
rected, the  divine  doctrine  of  Jesus  stands  forth  clearly 
defined,  and  of  his  personality  there  emerge  not  only  "  a 
few  ineffaceable  lineaments  which  could  belong  only  to  a 
figure  unique  in  grace  and  majesty,"  but  the  figure  itself 
emerges  in  its  majesty  and  grace. 

This  doctrine  and  this  personality  as  criticism  revea]^ 
rather  than  becloud/  them  have  never  been  approached, 
and  will  never  be  surpassed.  Goethe  has  truly  said  :  "  In- 
tellectual culture  may  ever  advance,  the  natural  sciences 
may  grow  in  ever  broader  extent  and  greater  depth,  and 
the  human  mind  may  enlarge  itself  as  it  will,  no  progress 
will  surpass  the  grandeur  and  moral  culture  of  Christianity 
as  it  shines  forth  in  the  Gospels."  *  No  appreciation  of  the 
teaching  and  the  moral  greatness  of  Jesus  is,  perhaps, 
clearer  and  more  acute  than  that  of  reverent  critics,  as 
testify  the  words  of  one  of  the  most  learned  and  sagacious 
of  this  class  in  modern  times :  "  Is  it  seriousness  or  is  it  a 
word  when  one  calls  this  virtuous,  God-allied  human 
life  the  noblest  blossom  of  a  noble  tree,  the  crown  of  the 
cedar  of  Israel?  In  a  withered  age  a  full,  satisfied  life, 
in  the  midst  of  ruin  a  structure,  among  characters  undone 
an  upright  and  a  strong,  among  the  godless  and  abandoned 
a  Son  of  God,  among  the  mourning  and  despairing  a  joy- 
ful, hopeful,  giving  soul,  among  sinners  a  saint ;  in  this 
contradiction  to  the  facts  of  the  time,  in  this  prodigious 
exaltation  above  the  oppressed,  the  low,  the  level  con- 
ditions of  the  century,  in  this  transformation  of  stationari- 
ness,  retrogression,  death-sickness  into  progress,  health, 
power,  and  the  color  of  eternal  youth,  in  this  conspicuous 
demarkation,  finally,  of  his  performance,  his  purity  and 

*  Letzte  Gesprache  mit  Eckermann,  iii.  373. 


CRITICISM  AND  HISTORICAL   CHRISTIANITY.      353 

his  nearness  to  God  even  from  the  new,  endless  centuries, 
which  through  him  have  overcome  stationariness  and  retro- 
gression, he  makes  the  impression  of  mysterious  loneliness, 
superhuman  wonder,  divine  creation."  ' 

Historical  criticism  is  not  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  a 
providential  revelation,  like  that  given  in  Jesus  Christ, 
under  the  conditions  of  human  development  and  the 
limitations  of  human  nature.  It  does  not  exclude  God 
from  history,  but  finds  it  no  wonder  that,  since  he  has 
designs  to  work  out  in  man,  exceptional  manifestations 
of  his  revealing  spirit  should  betimes  appear.  That  in  an 
historical  period  when  the  course  of  events  seems  to  have 
prepared  a  place  for  him,  when  the  world  was  waiting  for 
transformation,  and  many  were  ready  and  intent  to  catch 
the  accents  of  a  divine  voice,  a  personality  should  appear 
charged  with  the  powers  of  a  new  life  and  bearing  a  great 
revelation,  is  a  result  to  be  looked  for  in  the  course  of 
providential  dealing  with  men.  The  moral  and  spiritual 
superiority  of  Jesus  places  his  personality  and  teaching 
beyond  the  invention  of  his  age,  and  attests  their  historical 
truth.  He  was,  indeed,  so  far  in  advance  of  the  spirit 
and  temper,  the  insight  and  intelligence,  of  his  time,  that 
it  is  no  wonder  that  his  early  followers  looked  upon  him 
as  a  phenomenal  creation,  a  Son  or  a  Word.  In  an  age  of 
the  supremacy  of  formalism  he  discarded  forms,  teaching 
that  not  in  Jerusalem  and  on  Gerizim  alone  was  the 
Father  to  be  worshipped,  but  wherever  a  human  soul 
would  come  into  spiritual  communion  with  him.  In  the 
midst  of  tyranny  and  oppression  he  taught  that  all  men 
are  brothers.  Surrounded  by  cruelty  and  indifference  to 
human  suffering,  by  scornful  caste  and  pride  of  rank  and 
race,  he  preached  the  Gospel  of  helpfulness  and  mercy. 

*  Keim,  Geschichte  Jesu,  iii.  662. 


354  GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 

To  Phariseeism,  ostentation,  and  self-righteousness  he  set 
forth  the  doctrine  and  the  example  of  humility.  Hemmed 
in  and  pressed  upon  by  a  spirit  of  self-seeking,  whose 
dominant  passion  was  temporal  power,  he  made  the 
unique  manifestation  of  self-devotion  in  history,  and 
wrought  his  life  into  the  foundations  of  a  kingdom  not  of 
this  world.  Reared  in  the  traditions  of  a  people  who 
worshipped  God  as  a  national  Divinity,  he  transcended 
the  greatest  of  its  teachers  and  seers  in  the  revelation  of 
the  Universal  Father.  In  a  time-serving  generation  he 
carried  his  uncompromising  fidelity  to  duty  to  the  pitch 
of  absolute  self-sacrifice.  His  patience  and  his  sufferings 
have  evoked  the  wonder  and  the  tears  of  thousands,  and 
enshrined  his  memory  in  the  heart  of  mankind.  The  cross 
on  which  he  died  has  become  a  great  spiritual  symbol  to 
the  ages,  and  the  crown  of  thorns  which  tortured  his 
brow  the  adoring  faith  of  men  has  transformed  into  the 
diadem  of  universal,  endless  spiritual  dominion.  "  He 
has  laid  an  eternal  rock,"  says  Renan,  "  foundation  of  the 
true  religion  ;  therefore  he  deserves  the  divine  rank ;  an 
absolutely  new  idea  made  through  him  its  entrance  into 
the  world  ;  we  are  all  his  disciples  and  his  continuators." 
As  a  spiritual  interpreter  of  human  nature  he  has,  indeed, 
never  been  surpassed,  never  equalled.  As  an  embodiment 
and  manifestation  of  whatever  is  noblest,  purest,  and 
tenderest  in  man,  he  stands  unrivalled  among  the  great 
religious  teachers  of  the  ages.  Other  personality  so 
morally  fruitful,  so  abounding  in  intensity  of  spiritual 
power,  has  never  appeared  in  history.  In  him  all  that  is 
most  godlike  and  most  human  was  united  in  harmony, 
and  found  consummate  expression.  His  life  is  at  once 
the  enigma  of  the  centuries  and  the  solution  of  their 
problems.  In  the  universality  of  his  religious  genius,  in 


CRITICISM  AND  HISTORICAL    CHRISTIANITY.      355 

the  scope  and  sureness  of  his  ethical  insight,  in  the  depth 
of  his  sympathy  and  the  breadth  and  lucidity  of  his 
understanding,  in  the  intensity  of  his  sufferings  and  the 
completeness  of  his  victory,  he  was  the  true  Son  of  Man. 
Tempted  in  all  points,  and  assailed  by  the  powers  of  sin 
and  the  ferocity  of  enraged  and  brutal  men,  he  held  with 
a  firm  grasp  the  sceptre  of  spiritual  ascendancy  which 
shall  never  depart  from  his  hand.  It  is  no  reluctant  and 
stinted  homage  of  words  which  criticism  pays  to  this 
greatest  of  the  divine  messengers  to  man  ;  but  its  supreme 
homage  is  paid  to  him  by  its  reverent  and  fearless  work 
which,  delivering  his  personality  and  his  teachings  from 
the  misconceptions  of  ages,  places  them  in  true  perspective 
and  bold  relief  for  the  instruction  and  inspiration  of  man- 
kind. 


INDEX. 


Abbot,  Ezra,  on  the  paschal  ques- 
tion, 237  ;  on  Basilides  and  the 
fourth  Gospel,  229 

Abbott,  E.  A.,  on  synoptic  prob- 
lem, 137 

Alcuin  revises  the  Vulgate,  25 

Alexandrine,  manuscript,  9  ;  church, 
the,  and  the  canon,  113—116 

Allegorical  interpretation, the  method 
of,  employed  by  the  evangelists, 
311  f. 

Anicetus   and  the  paschal  question, 

235 

Anonymous,  the  Saxon,  on  Pauline 
traits  in  Luke,  301 

Apocalyptics,  Jewish  and  Christian, 
affinity  of,  273 

Apocryphal  books  of  Old  Testament 
silent  as  to  person  of  Messiah,  260 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  quoted  ia  Igna- 
tian  Epistles,  59;  and  Justin's 
memoirs,  66 

Apollinaris  on  the  paschal  question, 
236 

Apostolic  age,  condition  of,  unfavor- 
able to  formation  of  canon  33, 
34  ;  tendencies  in,  towards  forma- 
tion of  canon,  35 

Application  or  interpretation  of  Old- 
Testament  passages  by  the  evange- 
lists, 307 

Arnold,  Matthew,  on  Papias  and  the 
fourth  Gospel,  225  ;  on  the  fourth 
Gospel,  230  ;  on  tradition,  232  ; 
on  the  geographical  knowledge  of 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
243  ;  his  criticism  of  the  "  ten- 
dency "-doctrine,  291 


Athenagoras  and  the  canon,  96 
Augustine,  his  theory  of  the  relation 

of  the  synoptics,  125 
Augusti  on  the  canon,  31 
Autographs   of   the    Gospels,    early 

perished,  I,  2  ;  how  written,  3 


B 


Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  in  relation  to 
the  canon,  45-48  ;  his  allegorizing, 

46  ;  does  not  quote   our  gospels, 

47  ;  his  naOcj<s  ysypaitTai,  47 
Bartholomew,  legend  of,  in  reference 

to  first  Gospel,  177,  178 

Basilides  in  relation  to  the  canon, 
80 

Bauer,  Bruno,  319 

Baur,  on  Eichhorn's  hypothesis,  136  ; 
on  Gieseler's  hypothesis,  141  ;  his 
historical  criticism  of  Gospels,  144; 
on  Marcion's  Gospel,  146 ;  his 
conclusions  on  date  of  Gospels 
modified  in  his  own  school,  146  ; 
on  historical  character  of  fourth 
Gospel,  219  ;  on  Justin  and  the 
fourth  Gospel,  227  ;  on  term  Son 
of  Man  as  used  by  Jesus,  268  ;  on 
triumphal  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jeru- 
salem, 295  ;  oa  "  tendency  "  in  the 
first  Gospel,  296 

Bezse,  Codex,  remarkable  for  glosses, 

17 

Biography  of  Jesus,  want  cf  material 
for,  on  the  part  of  the  evangelists, 

325 

Bleek,  on  the  paschal  question,  234  ; 
on  the  hermeneutics  of  the  evan- 
gelists, 313 

Bunsen  on  the  canon  of  Muratori,  99 


357 


358 


INDEX. 


Canonical  and  classical,  30 

Canonicity,  idea  of,  28,  29  ;  not  es- 
tablished by  councils,  30 ;  inde- 
pendent of  supposed  inspiration, 
31 

Canon  of  Gospels,  study  of,  27-117  ; 
nature  of  history  of,  27  ;  summary 
of  results  of  critical  study  of,  345 

Carpenter,  J.  Estlin,  approves  ' '  ten- 
dency "-criticism,  292 

Church,  hostile  to  revision  of  the 
text,  24 ;  and  the  canon,  32, 
108-113 

Clementine  Homilies,  the,  in  relation 
to  the  canon,  74-78 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  complains  of 
changes  made  in  text  of  Gospels, 
7  ;  regards  Hebrews  as  work  of 
Paul,  113,  note  ;  quotes  Barnabas 
and  Clement  of  Rome  as  apostles, 
113  ;  his  distinction  of  canonical 
and  uncanonical  writings  not  clear 
113;  account  of  composition  of 
Gospels,  114 

Clement  of  Rome,  his  Epistle  in  re- 
lation to  the  canon,  41—44 

Clement  V.,  Pope,  forbids  addition 
to  Matt.  xvii.  49,  p.  15 

Colani  on  Messianism,  259,  271 

Conception  of  Jesus,  the  miraculous, 
331  ff. 

Copies  of  Gospels  made  in  second  and 
third  centuries  have  perished,  5 

Copying,  hypothesis  of,  to  explain 
the  synoptic  problem,  125-130 

Copyists,  errors  of,  classified,  12 

Credner,  on  Justin's  quotations,  72  ; 
on  the  Gnostics  and  the  canon,  84  ; 
on  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  first  Gospel,  180  ;  on 
the  interpretation  of  Is.  ix.  I,  2  in 
Matt.  iv.  14,  15,  p.  309 

Criticism,  the  true,  historical,  255  ; 
conservative  conclusions  of,  319, 
351  ;  maxim  of,  335  ;  and  histori- 
cal Christianity,  337-35  5  ;  proceeds 
on  the  principle  that  the  Gospels 
are  to  be  treated  as  literature,  338  ; 
confirms  historical  Christianity, 
343  f.;  homage  of,  to  Jesus,  355 


Cureton  published  fragments  of  the 
Gospels  in  Syriac,  25 

D 

Daniel,  book  of,  its  object  and  date, 

259 

Davidson,  on  the  "  order"  of  Mark's 
Gospel,  163  ;  on  Papias'  testimony 
as  to  Mark's  Gospel,  163  ;  on  date 
of  Mark's  Gospel,  172  ;  on  rela- 
tion of  Luke  to  the  logia  and  to 
Matthew,  201  ;  on  Eusebius'  testi- 
mony to  the  fourth  Gospel,  225  ; 
on  the  reading  ' '  Bethany  "  in  John 
i.  28,  p.  243;  on  "tendency"  in 
Luke,  302 

Delitzsch  on  the  synoptic  problem, 
150 

Demoniacs  first  recognize  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah  according  to  Mark,  154 

De  Wette,  on  relation  of  synoptics, 
126,  143  ;  on  the  fourth  Gospel, 

143 

Diestel  on  types,  316 

Dillmann  on  the  book  of  Enoch,  260 

Diognetus,    Epistle   to,    and   fourth 

Gospel,  50,  231. 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  and  the  canon, 

93 
Discourses  of  Jesus  in  fourth  Gospel, 

215 
Discrepancy  between  first  and  third 

Gospels  in  the   prehistorical   por- 
tions, 204 

Divination,  historical,  300 
Divisions  in  early     Church   hinder 

formation  of  canon,  39 
Divorce,  Mark's  reference  to  Roman 

custom  regarding,  165 
Dogmatic  changes  in  text,  18,  19 
Donaldson,  on  Athenagoras,  97  ;  on 

canon  of  Muratori,  IOI 
Duplicates  in  Matthew,  185,  188 


Eichhorn,  on  development  of  canon, 
32  ;  his  hypothesis  to  explain  rela- 
tion of  synoptics,  130-138;  on  the 
fourth  Gospel,  134 

Enoch,  book  of,  its  Messianic  fea- 
tures, 260 


INDEX. 


359 


Epiphanius,  on  a  Hebrew  Matthew, 
178  ;  on  the  fourth  Gospel,  230 

Eschatology  of  Gospels  discussed, 
254-290,  335 

Esdras,  fourth  book  of,  its  Messia- 
nism,  262 

Ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  modified  in 
the  Gospels,  336 

Eusebius,  on  canonicity,  30  ;  on 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  45 

Evangelists,  first  and  third,  in  rela- 
tion to  Mark,  203 

Ewald,  his  hypothesis  of  formation 
of  synoptic  Gospels,  148  ;  his  atti- 
tude towards  "  tendency  "-criti- 
cism, 147  ;  on  kuEivo^  in  John 
xix.  35,  p.  239 


Falsus  in  ttno,  falsus  in  omnibus, 
not  applicable  to  Gospels,  329 

Fantastic  elements  in  Jewish  apoca- 
lyptics,  259 

Feeding  of  multitude,  duplicate  ac- 
counts of,  168,  185  ;  Weizsacker 
on,  328 

Fig-tree,  the  barren,  Mark's  account 
of,  as  indicating  a  tendency  to 
think  parabolic  words  into  para- 
bolic acts,  167 

Figures  of  speech,  Jesus'  use  of,  in 
reference  to  the  future,  278 

Formula  of  quotation  from  the  Old 
Testament  used  by  the  evangelists 
as  indicating  a  purpose  to  inter- 
pret, 307 

Fourth  Gospel,  see  John. 

Fritzsche  on  telic  use  of  'iva  by  evan- 
gelists in  quoting  from  Old  Testa- 
ment, 307 

Fulfilment  of  prophecy  as  understood 
by  author  of  first  Gospel,  308  ; 
sought  by  evangelists  as  result  of 
new  hermeneutics  of  Old  Testa- 
ment, 327 

Future  of  Old-Testament  prophecy, 
258 

G 

Genealogy  of  Jesus  in  Matthew,  192  ; 
in  Luke,  204 


Gieseler  on  synoptic  problem,  138- 
142 

Glosses,  origin  of,  17  ;  when  words 
or  sentences  are  to  be  regarded  as, 
20 

Gnosticism,  78 

Goethe,  eulogy  of  Christianity,  352 

Gospels,  originally  without  titles,  3  ; 
not  protected  by  reverence  from 
errors  of  early  copyists,  4  ;  division 
of  into  chapters,  etc.,  n,  12; 
writers  of,  do  not  claim  inspiration, 
31 ;  results  of  study  of,  as  literature, 
118,  209;  synoptic,  limitation  of 
their  historic  material,  120  ;  prob- 
lem of  their  agreements  and  dif- 
ferences, 122  ;  not  histories  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word,  219  ;  right 
point  of  view  for  study  of,  255  ; 
as  histories,  318-336 

Griesbach,  his  hypothesis  on  relation 
of  synoptic  Gospels,  126-130 

Guard  of  soldiers  at  grave  of  Jesus, 
184 

H 

Harmonizing  of  Gospels  as  effecting 
changes  in  the  text,  14  ;  puerile 
expedients  of,  335 

Harnack  on  canon  of  Muratori,  99, 
101 

Hase  on  composite  character  of 
fourth  Gospel,  249 

Hebrews,  Gospel  according  to,  and 
Matthew,  179  ;  Epistle  to,  author 
of,  confirms  the  synoptic  tradition, 
342 

Hegesippus,  memoirs  of,  in  relation 
to  the  canon,  63 

Hengstenberg  on  the  paschal  ques- 
tion, 234 

Hermas,  the  Shepherd  of,  date  and 
relation  to  the  canon,  48 

Hermeneutics,  the,  of  the  evange- 
lists, 306-317 

Hilgenfeld,  on  the  Ignatian  Epistles 
and  the  fourth  Gospel,  59  ;  on 
Justin's  quotations,  72,  73  ;  on 
the  Clementine  Homilies,  77  ;  on 
the  canon  of  Muratori  99 ;  his 
hypothesis  of  the  relation  of  the 


INDEX. 


synoptics,  147  ;  on  authorship  of 
third  Gospel,  208  ;  on  an  original 
Matthew,  296 ;  on  the  paschal 
question,  237 

Hippolytus  on  the  Gnostics,  81 
Historical  interpretation,  300 
Histories,  the  Gospels  as,  219,  325 
Hitzig  on  the  Danielic  vision  of  the 

Son  of  Man,  259,  267 
Holtzmann,  on  the  restoration  of  the 
Itala,  23  ;  on  the  synoptic  prob- 
lem, 124,  140,  157  ;  on  Eichhorn's 
hypothesis,  135  ;  on  an  original 
Mark,  151  ;  on  priority  of  Mark, 
153  ;  on  Papias'  testimony  as  to 
Matthew,  174  ;  on  the  historical 
and  legendary,  328  ;  on  the  poetry 
of  the  prehistorical  narratives  of 
first  and  third  Gospels,  335 


Ignatius,  Epistles  of,  in  relation  to 
canon,  33 

Immer,  on  textual  criticism,  20  ;  on 
types,  316  ;  on  eschatology,  285 

"Ira,  used  as  telic  particle  in  quota- 
tions made  by  evangelists  from 
Old  Testament,  307 

Inspiration,  not  claimed  by  evan- 
gelists, 31  ;  Justin  Martyr  on,  67  ; 
not  thought  in  apostolic  and  post- 
apostolic  ages  to  be  special,  39, 
42  ;  not  attributed  to  evangelists 
in  middle  of  the  second  century, 

175 

Intercourse  between  churches,  want 
of,  in  post-apostolic  age  unfavora- 
ble to  formation  of  canon,  38 

Interpolation  of  text,  charges  con- 
cerning, 6  ;  in  Mark  xvi.  9-20, 
and  John  v.  4  and  vii.  52-viii.  12, 
p.  17  ;  the  great,  in  Luke,  156, 
205 

Interpretation,  allegorical,  used  by 
the  evangelists,  311  f.  ;  the,  of 
teachings  of  Jesus  required  by 
conditions  of  first  century,  331 

Irenaeus,  on  the  Gospels  of  the 
Gnostics,  81  ;  quotes  Shepherd  of 
Hermas  as  inspired,  95  *,  writings 
of,  in  relation  to  canon,  102-106  ; 


appeals  to  prophecy  to  confirm 
Gospel-accounts  of  miracles,  115, 
gives  fantastic  reasons  for  accept- 
ing the  four  Gospels,  103,  104  ; 
his  testimony  to  miracles  in  the 
second  century,  115  ;  on  the  first 
Gospel,  177,  on  the  third,  206 

Isaiah,  the  second,  point  of  view  of, 
258 

Itala,  early  Latin  version  of  Gospels, 

22 

J 

Jachmann  on  the  Shepherd  of  Her- 
mas, 49 

lacobsen  on  relation  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  152 

Jerome  author  of  Vulgate-version, 
24 

Jerusalem,  judgment  on,  and  the 
Parousia,  254 

Jesus,  his  appearance  after  resurrec- 
tion, according  to  Matthew  and 
Luke,  123  ;  discourses  of,  in  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  123  ;  his  an- 
nouncement of  himself  as  Mes- 
siah, in  Mark  and  Matthew,  154  ; 
conception  of,  in  fourth  Gospel, 
212  ;  his  confidence  in  the  success 
of  his  cause,  254 ;  his  relation  to 
Jewish  Messianism.  263-270  ;  his 
spiritual  apprehension  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  264  ;  his  attitude 
towards  the  popular  Messianic 
titles,  Son  of  David,  Son  of  God, 
265  f.  ;  his  apprehension  of  his 
Sonship,  266  ;  in  what  sense  he  re- 
garded himself  as  Messiah,  270  f.  ; 
at  Csesarea  Philippi,  270,  272, 
286  ;  impression  made  by  his  per- 
sonality, 322  ;  his  teachings  in- 
tended for  mankind,  and  not  for 
Jews  only,  331  ;  known  by  his 
contemporaries  as  the  carpenter's 
son,  332  ;  his  moral  and  spiritual 
greatness,  353  f. 

Jewish  Messianism,  256-263  ;  atti- 
tude of  Jesus  towards,  263  ff. 

Jews,  attitude  of  fourth  evangelist 
towards,  224 

John's  Gospel,  probably  known  to 
author  of  Ignatian  Epistles,  59 ; 


INDEX. 


361 


discussion  of,  210-253  ;  prologue 
of,  211  f.  ;  relation  of,  to  synop- 
tics, 214  ;  discourses  of  Jesus  in, 
215  f.  ;  accounts  of  miracles  in, 
216 ;  sources  of,  218  f.  ;  relation 
of  to  Pauline  ideas,  219,  222  ; 
subjective  character  of,  221  ;  his- 
torical evidences  as  to,  224  ; 
whether  cited  by  Justin,  226  f.  ; 
conclusions  regarding  external  evi- 
dences, 231  ;  authorship,  238  f.  ; 
point  of  view  of  that  of  second 
century,  242  ;  composite  character 
of,  249  ;  logia  of  Jesus  in,  252, 
339  ;  date  of  composition,  252  ; 
eschatology  of,  288  f.  ;  interpreta- 
tion of  Old  Testament  in,  309  f.  ; 
genuineness  of,  not  essential  to 
historical  Christianity,  347  f. 

John  the  apostle  supposed  to  have 
settled  the  canon,  31  ;  character 
of  in  synoptics  incompatible  with 
his  authorship  of  fourth  Gospel, 
240 

John  the  presbyter,  on  Mark,  61, 
162 

Justin  Martyr's  Gospels,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  canon,  65—74  >  an<i  the 
fourth  Gospel,  226  f. 


Kahnis  on  synoptic  problem,  150 

Keim,  on  date  of  second  Gospel,  1 72  ; 
on  date  of  first  Gospel,  196 ;  on 
sources  of  fourth  Gospel,  219,  220  ; 
on  the  passover  question,  237  ;  on 
synoptic  eschatology,  255  ;  on  the 
Parousia,  281,  287  ;  on  Pauline 
traits  in  Luke,  301  ;  tribute  to 
Jesus,  352 

Kingdom  of  Jesus,  spiritual  nature 
of,  330 

Kostlin,  on  Marcion's  Gospel,  88  ; 
on  place  of  composition  of  Luke, 
208  ;  on  historical  character  of 
synoptics,  322 

Koppe,  his  hypothesis  as  to  synop- 
tics, 115 

L 

"  Last  days,"  thought  to  be  near,  in 
apostolic  age,  34 


Legendary  narratives  in  Gospels, 
,183,  331  f. 

Xoyiot,  discussion  of  meaning  of,  as 
used  by  Papias  of  Matthew's  writ- 
ing, 174  ;  Kvpiand  by  Matthew, 
36 

Logia  of  Jesus  in  fourth  Gospel, 
252,  339 

Logia-source,  used  by  authors  of 
synoptic  Gospels,  156,  166,  186, 
200  ;  how  sayings  of  Jesus  were 
contained  in,  158  ;  preferred  by 
author  of  first  Gospels  to  other 
sources,  189 ;  used  by  first  and 
third  evangelists,  190  ;  how  used 
by  Luke,  203  ;  importance  of  the 
fact  that  it  was  in  writing,  320 

Lord's   prayer,  changes  in  text  of, 

14 

Luke,  author  of  third  Gospel,  197  ; 
revised  eschatology  of  Mark  and 
Matthew,  274,  278  ;  his  Pauline 
"tendency,"  and  the  historical 
character  of  his  Gospel,  331 

Luke's  Gospel,  relation  of,  to  the 
logia  and  Matthew,  156,  157,  202; 
dependence  of,  on  Mark,  159,  199 
f.  ;  sources  of,  191  f.,  204  f.  ;  dis- 
cussed, 197-209  ;  and  the  logia- 
source,  200  f.  ;  Pauline  character 
of,  206;  "tendency "of  and  re- 
lation to  Paul's  Epistles,  206,  300 
f . ;  historical  point  of  view  of,  207  ; 
written  last  of  the  synoptics,  date, 
208  f.  ;  account  of  overthrow  of 
Jerusalem  in,  209  ;  not  a  merely 
dogmatic  composition,  305 

M 

Mangold  on  relation  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  152 

Manuscripts  of  Gospels,  earliest  ex- 
isting, 5  ;  account  of  principal, 
9-1 1 

Marcion,  corrupts  Luke's  Gospel,  6 ; 
his  collection  in  relation  to  canon, 
32  ;  canon  of,  85-90  ;  acknowl- 
edged only  Pauline  writings,  86  ; 
his  Gospel,  controversy  on,  87  f. 

Mark,  as  epilomator  and  copyist, 
126  ;  his  relation  to  Peter,  161 


362 


INDEX. 


Mark's  Gospel,  priority  of,  to  other 
synoptics,  153 ;  discussed,  161- 
172  ;  vivid  style  of,  162,  169  ;  testi- 
mony of  Papias  regarding,  162  ; 
relation  to  first  Gospel,  165  ;  rela- 
tion to  logia-source,  166  ;  and  the 
oral  tradition,  166 ;  contains 
legendary  expansion  of  oral  tradi- 
tion, 168  ;  linguistic  usage,  170  ; 
object  of,  171  ;  time  and  place  of 
composition,  171 ;  historical  char- 
acter of,  322  f. 

Mark-hypothesis,  the,  as  developed 
by  Weisse  and  Wilke,  143  f . ; 
Meyer  on,  148  ;  Weiss  and  Holtz- 
mann  on,  151 

Marsh  on  Eichhorn's  hypothesis, 
137 

Martineau,  on  the  paschal  question, 
238  ;  on  Jesus'  Messianic  claims, 
285  f. 

Mary  and  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion, 332 

Matthew,  author  of  "Oracles"  of 
Christ,  36,  173 

Matthew's  Gospel,  numerical  sym- 
bolism in,  152  ;  dependence  on 
Mark,  153  ;  difference  from 
Mark  as  to  announcement  of 
Messiah,  154;  discussion  of,  173- 
196  ;  sources  of,  186  f.,  192  ;  not 
originally  a  Hebrew  Gospel, 
177  f.;  and  that  according  to 
Hebrews,  1 79 ;  as  an  apostolic 
composition  incompatible  with 
Luke's  record,  179;  an  indepen- 
dent composition  in  Greek,  i8of. ; 
quotations  from  Old  Testament 
in,  1 80  f. ;  not  work  of  an  eye- 
witness, 183, 185  ;  relation  to  logia, 
188  f. ;  place  and  time  of  writing, 
193  f. ;  "  tendency  "  of,  195,  293  ; 
point  of  departure,  297 

Melito  of  Sardis  and  the  canon,  95 

"Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  Jus- 
ting, 65-74 

Messianic  expectations  of  Jews, 
255  f- 

Messianism  in  Jewish  prophets  and 
apocalypses,  256-262  ;  as  a  source 
of  "  tendency,"  329 


Meyer,  his  hypothesis  on  the  synop- 
tics, 148  ;  on  the  legend   of   the 
shepherds   and   the   angels,  334 
Miracle  and  allegory,  328 
Multitude,  feeding  of,  duplicates  of, 
167  J    fed    numbers   of,   in    Mark 
and  Matthew,  167 
Muratori,  canon  of,  98-102 
Mysticism  of  fourth  Gospel,  244 
Mythical  theory,  reaction  from,  328 


N 


Nazarene,  the,  and  the  "Branch," 
183 

Nazareth,  how  mentioned  in  first 
Gospel,  333 

Nice,  council  of,  settled  paschal 
controversy,  235 

Nosgen,  on  the  synoptic  problem, 
150 

Norton,  on  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  46  ; 
on  Ignatian  Epistles,  56  ;  on  Jus- 
tin's quotations,  74 ;  on  Eich- 
horn's hypothesis,  137 ;  on  oral 
tradition  as  solving  the  synoptic 
problem,  142 

Numerical  symbolism  in  the  first 
Gospel,  152,  195 


O 


Old  Testament,  the,  in  the  Gospels, 
306-317 ;  read  in  a  new  light  by 
Jewish  Christians,  327 

Oral  canon,  the,  36 

Oral  proclamation  of  Gospel,  frag- 
mentary character  of,  323 

Oral  tradition,  early,  and  the  canon, 
37  ;  hypothesis  of,  to  explain 
the  synoptic  problem,  138-142  ; 
perils  of,  for  the  evangelists, 
320 

Organization,  want  of,  hinders  for- 
mation of  canon  in  post-apostolic 
age,  38 

Origen  on  text  of  the  Gospels,  7,  8  ; 
his  testimony  to  canon,  114-116  ; 
first  to  distinguish  Gospels  and 
Epistles  as  "  accepted  "  and 
"  doubted,"  114  ;  his  statement 


INDEX. 


363 


of  tradition  as  to  composition  of 
Gospels,  115  ;  distinguished  Gos- 
pel of  Nazarenes  from  that  ac- 
cording to  Matthew,  178 

Original  Gospel,  hypothesis  of,  130- 
138 

Overbeck  on  Pauline  traits  in  Luke, 
301 


Palestinian-Jewish  exegesis,  312 

Pantaenus  on  first  Gospel,  177 

Papias,  testimony  of,  to  canon,  60  ; 
did  not  know  a  Gospel  by  Mat- 
thew, 1 80  ;  canon  of,  224  ;  rela- 
tion to  fourth  Gospel,  225 

Parabolic  sayings  thought  into  para- 
bolic acts  by  Mark,  235  f. 

Parousia,  Mark's  record  of  discourse 
on,  not  from  oral  tradition,  157, 
164 ;  as  set  forth  by  Luke,  209  ; 
in  synoptic  Gospels,  255  ;  sayings 
regarding  in  the  Gospels  exam- 
ined, 278-284 

Paschal  question  and  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, 233  f. 

Pauline-Jewish  controversy,  the,  39  ; 
ideas  in  fourth  Gospel,  219,  223  ; 
traits  in  first  Gospel,  294,  300 

Paul,  occasion  of  his  Epistles,  34  ; 
Epistles  not  written  for  future 
ages,  35  j  claims  no  especial  in- 
spiration as  a  writer,  35  ;  alle- 
gorizes Old  Testament,  35,  314  ; 
appeals  to  tradition  of  "  words  of 
the  Lord,"  36  ;  indifferent  to  his- 
tory of  Jesus,  36  ;  on  the  Messiah 
as  judge,  284  ;  his  use  of  typol- 
ogy. 3T4  »  a  witness  to  the  facts 
of  synoptic  history,  339  ;  conver- 
sion of,  339 

Peschito,  early  Syriac  version  of 
Gospels,  22,  25 

Peter,  call  of,  as  reported  by  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  irreconcilable  with 
Luke's  account,  123 ;  confession 
of,  265,  270 

Pfleiderer,  on  Mark  as  a  "  tendency  "- 
writing,  168  ;  on  Mark's  reference 
to  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem, 


172  ;  on   Pauline  traits  in  Luke, 

301 

Philo  as  an  allegorist,  313 
Polycarp,   Epistle  of,  in  relation  to 

canon,    51  ;  on  paschal  question, 

235 
Post-apostolic  age  in  relation  to  the 

canon,  37 
Pragmatism  of  first  evangelist,  298, 

330 

Predilections,   personal,   hinder  for- 
mation of  canon  in  post-apostolic 

age,  37 
Prehistorical  narratives  of  first  and 

third    Gospels    want  verification, 

332 
Presumptions  as   to  canonicity   not 

accepted  by  criticism,  31 


Quartodecimans,  the,  in  paschal 
controversy,  235 

Quirinius,  Luke's  account  of  census 
under,  unhistorical,  334 

Quotations  from  Gospels,  in  second 
century,  7  ;  not  made  by  Clement 
of  Rome,  23  ;  question  as  to  Jus- 
tin's, 65-74 

Quotations  from  Old  Testament, 
formula  as  applied  to  Gospels,  43, 
48  ;  by  first  evangelists,  180  ;  by 
evangelists  considered,  306-317 


Readings,  various,  classified,  12  ; 
arising  from  attempts  to  reconcile 
evangelists  with  one  another,  14  ; 
arising  from  attempts  of  copyists 
to  reconcile  an  evangelist  with 
himself  or  with  facts,  15  ;  which 
remove  difficulties,  suspicious,  21 

Renan,  on  Pauline  traits  in  Luke, 
301 ;  eulogy  of  Jesus,  354 

Reuss,  on  conflicts  in  early  Church 
with  reference  to  the  canon,  40  ; 
on  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  46  ;  on 
Gnosticism  and  the  canon,  81  ;  on 
Marcion's  Gospel,  88  ;  on  copying 
hypothesis,  129 


INDEX. 


Revelation,  the,  and  the  fourth 
Gospel,  232  ;  historical  criticism 
not  opposed  to,  353 

Reville,  on  Papias'  ignorance  of  first 
Gospel,  1 80 ;  on  legends  in  first 
Gospel,  185;  on  date  of  first  Gos- 
pel, 196 

Ritschl,  on  date  of  Clementine 
Homilies,  75 ;  on  priority  of 
Mark,  155 


Sanday  on  the  Clementine  Homilies 
and  the  canon,  77 

Schenkel  on  the  eschatological  prob- 
lem, 254 

Schleiermacher,  on  Marcion's  Gos- 
pel, 87  ;  his  theory  of  composition 
of  Luke,  198 

Schiirer  on  paschal  question,  237 

Schwegler,  on  Epistle  of  Poly  carp, 
51  ;  as  a  Tubingen  critic,  147  ;  his 
extreme  tendency-criticism,  292 

Scriptures  (ypacpai}  first  applied  to 
Gospel-writings,  95 

Semler,  on  the  canon  as  a  growth, 
32  ;  on  Marcion's  Gospel,  87 

Shepherds  and  angels,  story  of, 
ideal,  334 

Simon  Magus  in  Clementine  Homi- 
lies, 75 

Sinaitic  Manuscript,  9  ;  omits  many 
spurious  readings,  19;  and  Vatican, 
agree  in  majority  of  readings,  19 

Source-criticism,  growing   favor  of, 

319 
Spiritual  transformed  into  physical 

facts  by  tradition,  350 
Storr  on  synoptic  problem,  125 
Strauss,    his   mythical   theory,    143, 

146  ;    on    the    oral    tradition    of 

sayings  of  Jesus,  157  ;  his  services 

to  Gospel-criticism,  327 
"Supernatural  Religion,"  author  of, 

on    Justin's   quotations,    74  ;    on 

Clementine  Homilies,  77 
Symbolism,  of  certain  Gospel-narra- 
tives,   184  ;    numerical,    in    first 

Gospel,  152,  195 
Synoptic    Gospels    compared    with 

fourth  Gospel,  118 


Synoptic  problem,  with  reference  to 
integrity  of  synoptic  text,  5  ;  dis- 
cussion of,  118-160;  importance 
of  to  hypotheses  of  origin  of 
Gospels,  124  ;  theories  for  solution 
of,  125  ;  results  of  study  of,  347 

Synoptists,  their  use  of  the  same 
limited  material,  124  ;  their  Mes- 
sianic beliefs,  272  f. 


Targums,  the,  their  Messianism,  261 

Tatian,  Diatessaron  in  relation  to 
the  canon,  91  ;  knew  fourth  Gos- 
pel, 230 

Tayler  on  fourth  Gospel,  211 

"Tendencies,"  dogmatic,  in  the 
Gospels,  291-315 

"  Tendency,"  as  affecting  first  Gos- 
pel, 195,  293  ;  as  affecting  his- 
torical character  of  Gospels,  329  f. 

Tertullian,  on  the  heretics  and  the 
Scriptures,  81  ;  his  uncritical  ac- 
ceptance of  tradition,  107  ;  testi- 
mony to  canon,  106-108  ;  on  third 
Gospel  as  ascribed  to  Paul,  106 

Text  of  Gospels,  1-27  ;  witnesses  to, 
6  ;  original,  cannot  be  restored, 
26 

Text,  summary  of  results  of  criticism 
of,  344 

Textual  criticism,  some  principles 
of,  20  ;  has  to  do  with  human 
phenomena,  26 

Theophilus,  and  the  canon,  97  ;  his 
Tfvevjaarocpopoi,  98  ;  first  to  as- 
cribe fourth  Gospel  to  John,  230 

Time-order  often  disregarded  in  the 
Gospels,  185 

Tischendorf,  on  textual  criticism,  20 ; 
on  date  of  Clementine  Homilies, 

75 

Tradition  of  Jesus,  modified  by  the 
media   through   which  it   passed, 
325  ;  characteristic  of,  to  enhance 
events  and  effects,  350 
Tregelles  on  canon  of  Muratori,  99 
Tubingen  critics,  on   Justin's  testi- 
mony to  fourth  Gospel,  226  ;  their 
doctrine  of  "  tendency,"  291 


INDEX. 


365 


Tubingen  school,  modifications  in, 

319 
Types,  none  in  Old  Testament,  315  ; 

an  invention  of  a  false  exegesis,  316 
Typology,      in      hermeneutics      of 

evangelists,  311  f.  ;  true  meaning 

of,  315 

U 

Uncial  manuscripts,  9 

Uncritical  acceptance,  of  Gospels  by 

Irenaeus,    103,    104;    of   tradition 

by  Tertullian,  107 
Unhistorical  features  of  Gospels  do 

not  invalidate  historical,  329  f. 
Universalism  of  Paul  surpassed  in 

fourth  Gospel,  241 

V 

Valentinus  and  the  canon,  82-85 

Variants,  12 

Vatican  Manuscript,  9  ;  omits  many 

spurious  readings,  12 
Vaticinium  post  eventum^  172,  350 
Versions  of  Gospels,  22 
Virgin-birth    of    Jesus    erroneously 

derived  in  first  Gospel   from  Is'. 

vii.  14,  pp.  182,  297,  308 
Virginity,  perpetual,  of  Mary,  doc- 
trine of,  causes  dogmatic  change 

in  text,  19 
Volkmar,  on  Marcion's  Gospel,  88 ; 

his  ' '  tendency  "-interpretation  of 

Peter's     miraculous     draught     of 

fishes,  292 
Voss,  recension  of  Ignatian  Epistles 

by,  54 
Vulgate-version  of  Gospels,  22-24  I 

revised  by  order  of  Charlemagne, 

25 

W 

Weiffenbach   on    Jesus    before    the 
High-priest,  281 


Weisse,  author  of  Mark-hypothesis, 

143  ;    on    the     Mark-hypothesis, 
1 66 

Weiss,  on  quotations  of  Gospels  by 
Clement  of  Rome,  44  ;  on  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas  and  the 
canon,  50  ;  on  hypothesis  of  copy- 
ing, 129  ;  on  Matthew's  logia,  151  ; 
on  Mark  and  the  logia,  158  ;  his 
reconstruction  of  the  logia,  190 ; 
on  Luke's  relation  to  logia  and 
Matthew,  204 

Weizsacker,  on  historical  character 
of  fourth  Gospel,  220  ;  on  apostolic 
and  unapostolic  elements  in  fourth 
Gospel,  249  ;  his  arrangement  of 
synoptic  narratives  in  groups  of 
"doctrinal  tenets,"  328 

Wendt,  on  Mark  and  the  logia,  157  • 
on  relation  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
152  ;  his  reconstruction  of  the 
logia,  190  ;  on  composite  character 
of  fourth  Gospel,  249 

Westcott,  on  the  preservation  of  the 
text,  22  ;  on  "  Words  of  the  Lord" 
as  oral  canon,  36  ;  on  Justin's 
quotations,  74  ;  on  oral  tradition, 
142 

Wieseler  on  the  paschal  question, 
234 

Wilke,    on    the   synoptic    problem, 

144  ;  on  the  Mark-hypothesis,  166 
Winer  on  formula  of  quotation  from 

Old  Testament  used    by  evange- 
lists, 307 


Zechariah,       prophecies      of      the 

"Branch"  by,   258 
Zeller,  as  a  Tubingen  critic,    147  ; 

on  Papias  and  the  fourth  Gospel, 

225 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

THE  SCRIPTURES, 

HEBREW  AND   CHRISTIAN. 

ARRANGED  AND  EDITED  AS  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 
STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

REV.  EDWARD  T.  BARTLETT,  D.D., 
Dean  of  the  Divinity  School  of  the  P.  E.  Church  in  Philadel- 
phia, and  Mary  Wolfe,  Prof,  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

REV.  JOHN  P.  PETERS,  PH.D.,  ^  EDITORS. 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature  and  Language  in  the 
Divinity  School  of  the  P.  E.  Church  in  Philadelphia,  and 
Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  work  is  to  be  completed  in  three  volumes,  containing  each  about 
500  pages,  Vols.  I.  and  II.  now  ready. 

Vol.  I.  includes  Hebrew  story  from  the  Creation  to  the  time  of  Nehe- 
miah,  as  in  the  Hebrew  canon. 

Vol.  II.  is  devoted  to  Hebrew  poetry  and  prophecy. 

Vol.  III.  will  contain  the  selections  from  the  Christian  Scriptures. 

The  volumes  are  handsomely  printed  in  I2mo  form,  and  with  an  open, 
readable  page,  not  arranged  in  verses,  but  paragraphed  according  to  the 
sense  of  the  narrative. 

Each  volume  is  complete  in  itself,  and  will  be  sold  separately  at  $1.50. 

The  editors  say  in  their  announcement :  "Our  object  is  to  remove  stones 
of  stumbling  from  the  path  of  young  readers  by  presenting  Scriptures  to 
them  in  a  form  as  intelligible  and  as  instructive  as  may  be  practicable.  This 
plan  involves  some  re-arrangements  and  omissions,  before  which  we  have 
not  hesitated,  inasmucn  as  our  proposed  work  will  not  claim  to  be  the  Bible, 
but  an  introduction  to  it.  That  we  may  avoid  imposing  our  own  inlerper- 
tation  upon  Holy  Writ,  it  will  be  our  endeavor  to  make  Scripture  serve  as 
the  commentary  on  Scripture.  In  the  treatment  of  the  Prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  it  will  not  be  practica- 
ble entirely  to  avoid  comment,  but  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  pronounce 
upon  doctrinal  questions." 

The  first  volume  is  divided  into  four  parts  : 

PART  I. — HEBREW  STORY,  FROM  THE  BEGINNING  TO  THE  TIME  OF  SAUL, 
"    II. — THE  KINGDOM  OF  ALL  ISRAEL. 
*'  III. — SAMARIA,  OR  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM. 

"    IV. — JUDAH,  FROM  REHOBOAM  TO  THE  EXILE. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  P   PUTNAM'S  SONS 

The  second  volume  comprises  : 

PART  I.— HEBREW  HISTORY  FROM  THE  EXILE  TO  NEHEMIAH. 
"    II. — HEBREW  LEGISLATION. 
"  III. — HEBREW  TALES. 
"   IV. — HEBREW  PROPHECY. 
"     V. — HEBREW  POETRY. 
"  VI. — HEBREW  WISDOM. 

The  third  volume  will  comprise  the  selections  from  the  New  Testament, 
arranged  as  follows : 

I. — THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.  MARK,  PRESENTING  THE  EVAN- 
GELICAL STORY  IN  ITS  SIMPLEST  FORM  ;  SUPPLEMKNTED  BY 
SELECTIONS  FROM  ST.  MATTHEW  AND  ST.  LUKE. 
II. — THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES,  WITH  SOME  INDICATION  OF  THE 

PROBABLE  PLACE  OF  THE  EPISTLES  IN  THE  NARRATIVE. 
III. — THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.  JAMES  AND  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  PETER. 
IV. — THE  EPISTLES'OF  ST.  PAUL. 
V. — THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 
VI. — THE  REVELATION  OF  ST.  JOHN  (A  PORTION). 
VII. — THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JOHN. 
VIII.— THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  JOHN. 

Full  details  of  the  plan  of  the  undertaking,  and  of  the  methods  adopted 
by  the  editors  in  the  selection  and  arrangement  of  the  material,  will  be  found 
in  the  separate  prospectus. 

"  I  congratulate  you  on  the  issue  of  a  work  which,  I  am  sure,  will  find  a 
wide  welcome,  and  the  excellent  features  of  which  make  it  of  permanent 
value." — Rt.  Rev.  HENRY  C.  POTTER,  Bishop  of  New  York. 

"Should  prove  a  valuable  adjunct  of  Biblical  instruction." — Rt.  Rev.  W. 
E.  STEVENS,  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania. 

"Admirably  conceived  and  admirably  executed.  .  .  .  It  is  the  Bible 
story  in  Bible  words.  The  work  of  scholarly  and  devout  men.  .  .  . 
Will  prove  a  help  to  Bible  study."— Rev.  HOWARD  CROSBY,  D.D. 

"We  know  of  no  volume  which  will  better  promote  an  intelligent 
understanding  of  the  structure  and  substance  of  the  Bible  than  this  work, 
prepared,  as  it  is,  by  competent  and  reverent  Christian  scholars." — Sunday- 
School  Times. 

G.   P.   PUTNAM'S   SONS 

NEW  YORK  :  LONDON  : 

27  AND  29  WEST  230  STREET  27  KING  WILLIAM  ST.,  STRAND 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS. 

WORKS  BEARING  ON  THE  STUDY  OF  THE 

BIBLE. 


I.  The  Bible  of  To-Day.    By  JOHN  W.  CHADWICK.    8vo, 
cloth  extra       .         .         .         . "  .         .         .  $r  50 

"  The  need  of  some  such  work  is  keenly  felt  by  thousands  of  intelligent 
persons  who  are  not  in  a  position  to  make  an  adequate  study  of  the  elaborate 
works  in  which  this  criticism  has  written  its  comments,  yet  earnestly  desire 
to  know  what  conclusions  the  various  scholars  who  have  made  studies  of 
the  subject  have  reached." — N.  Y.  Evening  Post. 

II.  The  Bible.     What  is  it  ?     An  attempt  briefly  to  an- 
swer the  question  in  the  light  of  the  best  scholarship,  and 
in  the  most  reverent  and  catholic  spirit.     By  the  Rev.  J. 
T.  SUNDERLAND.     i6mo,  cloth       .         .         .         .     i  oo 

"  His  criticisms  are  scholarly,  thorough,  and  uncompromising,  but  he 
leaves  ample  room  for  a  powerful  defence  of  the  Bible  in  its  spiritual  aspects 
as  the  unfailing  depository  of  religious  faith  and  moral  inspiration." — 
N.  Y.  Tribune. 

III.  Benedicite  ;  or,  Illustrations  of  the  Power,  Wis- 
dom, and  Goodness  of  God,  as  Manifested  in  his 
Works.     By  G.  CHAPLIN  CHILD,  M.D.     With  an  Intro- 
duction by  HENRY  G.  WESTON,  D.D.     i2mo,  cloth  extra, 
beveled   .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .  2  oo 

"A  most  admirable  popular  treatise  of  natural  theology.  It  is  no  extrav- 
agance to  say  that  we  have  never  read  a  more  charming  book,  or  one  that 
we  can  recommend  more  confidently  to  our  readers  with  the  assurance  that 
it  will  aid  them,  as  none  that  we  know  of  can  do,  to 

"  'Look  through  Nature  up  to  Nature's  God.'" — Round  Table,  N.  Y. 

V     The  Book  of  the  Beginnings.     A  study  of  Genesis, 
with  a  general  introduction  to  the  study  of  the  Pentateuch. 
By  Rev.  R.  HEBER  NEWTON. 

i6mo,  cloth,  pp.  xv.-{-307         .         .         .         ;         .100 
Paper      .........         40 

"  These  'talks'  will  be  acceptable  to  the  general  public,  who  wish  to  see 
on  what  grounds  the  critics  base  their  conclusions  respecting  the  Penta- 
teuch."—  The  Nation. 

VI.    The  Right  and  Wrong  Uses  of  the  Bible.    By 

Rev.  R.  HEBER  NEWTON.     i6mo,  cloth,  pp.  264     .         75 

"It  is  impossible  to  read  these  sermons  without  high  admiration  of  the 

author's  courage,  of  his  honesty,  his  reverential  spirit,  his  wide  and  careful 

reading,  and  his  true  conservatism." — American  Literary  Churchman. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS     NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS. 

The  Nutshell  Series.  A  Gathering  of  the  Best  Thoughts 
of  the  Best  Writers.  Edited  by  HELEN  KENDRICK  JOHN- 
SON. Arranged  under  the  following  heads: 

I.  Wisdom.     II.    Philosophy.     III.   Sentiment.     IV.    Epi- 
grams and  Epitaphs.    V.  Proverbs.    VI.  Wit  and  Humor. 

Six  volumes,  oblong,  321110.     Uniquely  printed  and  handsomely  bound 
in  cloth,  gilt,  in  box  .  .  .  .  .  .  $3  oo 

In  full  calf  flexible,  gilt  edges,  in  calf  box      .  .  .  10  co 

In  full  calf,  in  unique  oak  case  .  .  .  .  12  oo 

"  A  delightful  little  present." 

"  The  admirable  brevity  in  the  selections  is  one  of  their  first  charms, 
but  this,  on  looking  though  them,  yields  to  admiration  for  the  excellent 
judgment  with  which  they  are  made."  —  St.  John  Globe. 

"  The  cutest  thing  we  ever  saw  in  the  book  line."  —  Burlington  Hawkeye. 

The  Pearl  Series.     Selections  from  the  Poets. 

Six  volumes,  exquisitely  printed,  in  48010,  cloth,  flexible, 
each  50  cents.  Per  set,  put  up  in  an  attractive  box  $3  oo 
In  full  calf,  in  calf  box  .  .  .  .  .  10  oo 
Or  in  unique  oak  case  .....  12  oo 

I.  Reflection.    II.  Fancy.    III.  Wit  and  Humor.    IV.  Love. 
V.  The  Poet's  Garden  (Language  of  Flowers).     VI.  Faith,  Hope, 
and  Charity,  the  three  best  gifts  of  heaven. 
These  volumes  can  be  sold  separately. 


*jj.*  This  forms  a  companion  set  to  the  very  popular  Nutshell  Series  of 
Prose  Selections. 

"  The  compiler's  work  has  been  done  with  adequate  knowledge  of  the 
material  to  be  selected  from,  and  with  excellent  taste.  The  collection  is 
fresh,  quaint,  and  attractive."  —  Chicago  Tribune. 

"The  set  gives  evidence  of  a  refined  taste,  and  of  care  in  book-mak- 
ing." —  N.  Y.  A'ation. 

"  All  the  world's  treasure-house  of  poesy  is  drawn  upon  for  this  fine 
collection  of  poetic  pearls  ...  as  recherche  a  Christmas  gift  as  one 
could  imagine."  —  Burlington  Hawkeye. 

"  The  editor  has  revealed  a  wide  and  catholic  reading."  —  Albany  Argus. 

"  Nothing  daintier  or  more  valuable  than  this  collection  of  pearls  of 
poetry  has  come  to  our  table  this  year."  —  Syracuse  Standard. 

"  Six  of  the  daintiest  little  volumes  imaginable."  —  Indianapolis  News. 

"  Diligent  search  and  wide  reading  have  met  with  their  reward."  —  Phila- 
delphia American. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  Publishers,  NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


LD  21-100m-9,'48(B399sl6)476 


YCIOI560 


